Standing Committee B
Thursday 26 February 1998
[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]
Clause 7
Arrangements for obtaining the views of the public on policing
5 pm
Mr. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North): I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 31, leave out `public' and insert `Community Police Liaison Committees'.
The Chairman: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 66, in page 4, line 31, after `public', insert
`and Community Police Liaison Committee'.
No. 36, in page 4, line 32, leave out `public' and insert
`Community Police Liaison Committees, local government authorities and such other representative bodies as may be appropriate'.
No. 67, in page 4, line 32, after `public', insert
`district councils and other agencies'.
No. 37, in page 4, line 32, after `preventing', insert `and reducing'.
No. 38, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.
No. 69, in page 5, line 8, leave out `reasonable' and insert
`not less than one month's'.
Mr. Walker: The Bill states that the views of the public should be obtained, but those views may differ. If one consulted a working men's club and a women's bridge club one would hear very different opinions, and the views expressed in a drinking club might be a trifle derogatory. One could not go to north Belfast and ask for people's view of the police without coming up against some serious opposition. How can one get a comprehensive account of the public's views? The term is ambiguous.
We propose to replace the clause's reference to the public with a reference to community police liaison committees because those committees are composed of people with a genuine interest in policing. They include trade unionists, locally elected representatives, ministers of religion, members of various political parties, senior citizens and other responsible members of the community. The CPLCs have an excellent rapport with the police, which was built up over a long period. Their members are more aware than most of the problems in their areas, and they can offer sound advice to the police on all matters that affect the community. The CPLC is the obvious place in which to sound opinion.
Is amendment No. 37, which would alter clause 7(1)(b), grouped with amendment No. 35?
The Chairman: Amendments Nos. 66, 36, 67, 37, 38 and 69 are included. I made that clear at the start of our proceedings.
Mr. Walker: I apologise, Mr. Jones.
We felt that adding the phrase ``and reducing'' would make clause 7(1)(b) more sensitive to local circumstances, and that local authorities and other representatives bodies would be appropriate in that context.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 66, 67, 37 and 69, one of which is supported by Ulster Unionist Members.
Clause 7 refers to the need for the Police Authority to represent not only the views of the wider community and the public, but to set that against certain requirements and to consider ways of obtaining that information from the general public. It is a two-way process and subsection (1) places a duty on the Police Authority to make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public on policing matters. Furthermore, subsection (1)(b) requires
``the co-operation of the public with the police in preventing crime.''
We have no basic argument against the thrust of clause 7, nor with the requirement on the Police Authortity to seek the views of the public and their co-operation, but amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 37, which pertain to subsection (1)(a) and (b), would define more clearly the role of the Police Authority, give it more teeth and convey to the public that it has an important role in the two-way process. It is widely acknowledged that the fight against crime is best accomplished when the various parties are seen to be working together. Those parties include the police, local communities and other agencies. The security and safety of individuals and communities, as well as crime prevention, are best delivered through partnerships between the public and the police.
The Government have published a consultative document, ``Getting to Grips with Crime: A New Framework for Local Action'', which was presumably published by the Home Office. It may not relate to Northern Ireland at the moment, but no doubt it will do so in due course. In that document the Government propose that local authorities and the police service be given new duties to develop statutory partnerships to help prevent and, just as importantly, reduce crime. How soon will it be before the Government enshrine those ideas in legislation? The document is out for consultation but I do not know how long it will be before the ideas within it will be put into legislation. Is there not an opportunity here to anticipate some of those ideas?
In Northern Ireland the current close working relationship between the Police Authority and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to promote and develop the network of community police liaison committees provides an excellent opportunity for them to play an important part in the development of local crime prevention strategies. That is exactly what clause 7(1)(b) seeks to achieve. No doubt, the development of the local policing plan under clauses 16 and 17, which we shall debate later, will provide opportunities for a more co-ordinated approach to the development of local crime prevention strategies throughout Northern Ireland. That is not specific to those two clauses, but they represent an opportunity to encompass some of the proposals contained in clause 7, and carry them forward into the policing plan.
Amendment No. 66 would insert the words
``and Community Police Liaison Committee''
after the word ``public'' in subsection 1(a), so that the subsection would state:
``The Police Authority shall make arrangements for obtaining . . . the views of the public and Community Police Liaison Committee about matters concerning policing''
We want to nominate CPLCs as important sources of consultation, and the amendment would give them the right to be consulted. If the Police Authority fails, or is seen to fail, in its duty to consult properly and listen to the public on the policing matters that concern them, those involved in CPLCs could tell the authority that it is neither consulting nor listening to them enough. The amendment would enshrine in legislation their right to be consulted.
The clause would use the words ``shall make arrangements'', not ``may'', so the draftsmen who have been asked to put the Government's ideas into the right wording are clear in what they mean. I do not want this to be a ``take it or leave it'' requirement. The clause tells the Police Authority that it shall make those arrangements. The omission to which I have referred could be put right easily, and accepting the amendment would cause the Government no pain.
Amendment No. 67 would insert the words
``district councils and other agencies''
after the word ``public'', so that subsection (1)(b) would state:
``the co-operation of the public, district councils and other agencies with the police''.
Although the Police Authority is required to consult each district council in Northern Ireland under subsection (2)(b), including that requirement in subsection (1) would strengthen the position of district councils and link them with the co-operation of the public.
We want the Police Authority not only to consult and listen to each district council, but to make arrangements to effect co-operation with the district councils--a very different requirement on the Police Authority than just asking it to consult. With the best will in the world, we all know that the word ``consult'' can be used or abused. It is an easy word to include in legislation and to bandy about.
5.15 pm
Consultation is not simply about sitting around a table and listening. It requires those who listen to take serious note of people's comments and to change what needs to be changed. Amendment No. 67 seeks to enforce the point that the Police Authority will have to arrange co-operation with district councils.
Amendment No. 37 relates to preventing crime. It is important to have machinery in place, either through committees or consultation groups, or through access to public opinion, to prevent crime, but we must also be more pro-active by stating clearly in legislation that as well as being serious about preventing crime, we are serious about reducing it. I doubt that anyone would be satisfied with the status quo. Crime has risen inexorably for many years in some areas of the United Kingdom. There is now some sign of that trend slowing, if not tailing off, but it is too early to say whether major inroads have been made into reducing crime.
Statistical measurements of crime in Northern Ireland show that the rate is much lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is probably a reflection of the ratio of RUC members to total population. A police force of more than 13,000 to 1.5 million people is about three times the police manpower for a similar population area in England and Wales. The large police presence in the community not only curbs terrorist activities--crimes of violence and other crimes against society--but means that the ordinary criminal is likely to meet a policeman more frequently than would be the case in England and Wales, especially in major cities such as Belfast and Londonderry.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that statistics show that the crime rate in the Republic of Ireland is also much lower than in Great Britain? Might not this be because the Irish have a peaceful nature that is occasionally disturbed by ideological differences, and that, apart from that, they have much less of a tendency towards more base forms of criminal activity than the hon. Gentleman and I might have?
| 
