Standing Committee B
Tuesday 3 March 1998
(Morning)
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
Clause 9
Grants to, and borrowing by, the Police Authority
10.30 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 6, line 18, at end insert—
‘(8) The Police Authority shall require the Chief Constable to consult before using any part of the grant for police purposes to procure novel or contentious equipment or services and to provide at such intervals as it may reasonably specify details of all such expenditure incurred or funds committed within a specified period.’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—Novel or contentious equipment—
‘The Chief Constable shall consult the Police Authority before using any part of the grant for police purposes to procure novel or contentious equipment or services and shall provide the Police Authority at such intervals as it may reasonably specify with details of all expenditure incurred or funds committed since such details were last furnished.’.
Mr. Moss: Welcome back to the Chair, Miss Widdecombe. With your experience at the Home Office, you will be especially adept at making sure that we stay in order at all times.
The amendment would insert a new subsection—(8)—in clause 9. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 relate to financial accountability and control. They also raise questions about efficiency and the reduction of bureaucracy.
Who will be primarily responsible for the financial rectitude of the police service? Clauses 10 and 11 state that the Police Authority must provide estimates of receipts and payments; it must keep proper accounts and records relating to the accounts. It is required to submit those documents not only to the Secretary of State, but—perhaps, more importantly—to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The clauses place a heavy and important responsibility on the Police Authority. The members of the authority recognise that and take their responsibility seriously. It seems to them that if anything were to go wrong, the Police Authority would have to carry the can. For example, if there were irregularities in the accounting procedures, or if the Chief Constable’s spending decisions were seen, with hindsight, to have been slightly or fundamentally irresponsible, the authority would be pilloried in the press and accused of not providing proper oversight. Clauses 10 and 11 make it clear that the Police Authority has a serious and responsible task relating to these matters.
It is important, in order to be reasonable and fair, that the Bill gives the Police Authority the power to command effective control and reporting systems without which it would be extremely difficult for the authority to do its job. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 73.
The amendment relates to the procuration by the Chief Constable of novel or contentious equipment or services. The Police Authority merely asks that it be fully consulted before such purchases are made.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): It will be.
Mr. Moss: The Minister says that it will be, but that is not yet provided for in the Bill. The Police Authority wants written into the Bill the statutory requirement that it be consulted. That is not at all unreasonable: it is important so that the authority can cover its back. After all, the opprobrium of the community will fall on the Police Authority if anything goes wrong or equipment is purchased without its knowledge or agreement. In the context of the heavily charged political atmosphere in Northern Ireland, the purchase and use of certain types of equipment must be highly contentious. Therefore, to consider allowing purchase, and use in certain circumstances, without the Police Authority’s knowledge or agreement would be to invite considerable protest. I am thinking of plastic bullets, stun guns and similar equipment that would not ordinarily be on the purchasing list of chief constables in shire countries. Northern Ireland is unique, particularly on account of the threat from terrorism, so obviously the Chief Constable would be involved in the purchase of any special equipment. Amendment No. 73 also relates to
“expenditure incurred or funds committed within a specified period.”
We ask that there be proper accounting on a quarterly basis—which seems reasonable regularity—to show not only how funds have been used but to make it clear to which services or equipment funds are being committed in the future. To achieve that, the Chief Constable would have to set up proper management accounts. Plenty of packages are available off the shelf for management accounting, but in this case proper procedures, possibly on an accrual accounting basis, would be required. I read this morning that the Chancellor is to introduce resource accounting, a new form of accounting for Government expenditure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The truth.
Mr. Moss: That is interesting. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Chancellor’s intentions in that respect have filtered down to the Northern Ireland Office, or beyond the Minister’s desk to the Chief Constable. A whole new vista is opened up by this new term. What does resource accounting mean? I think that it means making the best use of assets and resources.
The amendment would simply require the Chief Constable to account to the Police Authority for the purchase of equipment—or, certainly contentions equipment. Not only equipment already purchased but any that he was thinking of purchasing would be covered. Accounting systems should be established to enable the relevant information to be produced and relayed to the Police Authority at short notice.
The amendment would be an important addition to clause 9. It is not a probing amendment. The Police Authority would welcome such a wording. Proper consultation would be fair and reasonable in the context of the responsibility that the Bill— particularly clauses 10, 11 and 12—gives to the Police Authority. That is particularly true in relation to contentious equipment, which, in the Northern Ireland political context, is a hot potato. I am sure that, as the Minister agrees that consultation should take place, it will not take him long to accept that the amendment is reasonable and helpful.
Mr. Ingram: I have no quarrel with the intention behind the amendment, which makes sense in principle. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said when he moved the amendment.
The Government have made it clear that we intend to require the Chief Constable to consult the authority should he wish to purchase novel or contentious equipment or services. However, “novel” and “contentious” are terms without meaning in legislation, and it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
I appreciate the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and in representations by the Police Authority and I intend to include the requirement in the financial instructions that will set out the details of financial management arrangements under the Bill. That matter was touched on in our debate on clause 3 at column 129, when I made my intentions clear. The amendment also deals with financial reporting arrangements. Once again, while I have no quarrel with the principle, the detail is not appropriate for primary legislation. Detailed arrangements might be required and they would be better worked out within tripartite working groups, involving the RUC, the Police Authority and the Government, over coming months. I have previously spoken about how we are trying to engage in that process. Statutory provision for reporting arrangements between the RUC and the authority is in any case contained in clause 48. The reporting mechanism is set out in some detail.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendments are defective because of the problem of defining novel or contentious. If those terms were built into the Bill they would make it restrictive. It is better to treat financial arrangements separately from the primary aspects of the Bill, which would make it easier to amend in the light of new circumstances. If the financial aspects are included in the Bill, we will need to change primary legislation in order to amend them. It is usually impossible to achieve that.
10.45 am
We have tried to put in placed a mechanism that will take account of the Police Authority’s role in purchasing novel and contentious items, goods and services. Financial arrangements should be laid down but they should be properly examined separately from primary legislation. We are well aware of the importance of the Police Authority’s role in that respect, but it should not be included in the legislation because, as I said, it would make subsequent amendment difficult.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also spoke about resource accounting. I do not want to lecture him on that issue but it will be in place in the Police Authority and the RUC by the year 2000. The evaluation process is already in progress. We are moving forward towards effective accounting of financial arrangements. We recognise that financial rectitude is important so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. James Cran (Beverley and Holderness): As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made plain in his eloquent speech, considerable responsibility is placed upon the Police Authority, which is why we tabled the amendment. I shall not repeat all my hon. Friend’s points as the Minister has moved some distance towards us. I would like him, however, to clarify a couple of further points.
First, the Minister said that it would normally be “inappropriate” to put an amendment such as amendment No. 73 “on the face of the Bill.” I understood his reasons, but for clarity and to assuage the Police Authority’s fears, will the Minister let us know when it would normally be appropriate to include in legislation the obligation embodied in our amendment. In other words, is the specific amendment wrong, or would it never be appropriate for such an obligation to be included in the Bill? I know that the Police Authority wants an answer to that question.
Secondly, the Minister told us—quite responsibly—that the financial instructions will make it clear what the Chief Constable’s obligations are in this regard. But are the financial instructions merely passive—so that they may or may not be taken notice of—or do they amount to a legal obligation? If the Minister answers those two points—of course I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—I would be satisfied.
| 
