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

Mr. Ingram: If I used the word normally, I was expressing my innate cautiousness. such phraseology may be appropriate in other legislation. I have learnt in politics never to say never, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not learnt that; therefore, I hesitate to use the word “never”. Although my instinct tells me that it is appropriate in the context of the debate, the House is responsible for a range of legislation and I do not want to be held hostage by saying “never”, because I am not familiar with every measure that has been passed. I would hate to be told at some stage in my future career that I was wrong about the important Bill that we are considering. Mr. Cran: That is a political answer, which I did not want—I wanted a factual answer. Does the sort of provision that the amendment proposes never appear in legislation? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer for other Departments, but he can answer for the Northern Ireland Office. Would the provision never be incorporated in a Northern Ireland Bill? It is a simple question. Mr. Ingram: I do not now know what the hon. Gentleman is asking about the words “novel and contentious”. Those words would appear only in policing legislation. They would be unlikely to appear in health service legislation, because the tripartite relationship that the Bill describes does not apply to such measures. If we went through the legislation that applied to all Departments under the Northern Ireland Office, we would not find the specific phraseology, “novel and contentious”. Therefore, I shall use the word “never” in that context. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) makes a political point by raising the matter. It may be one of his customary quiet filibusters, as he is not backed by supporters. The financial instructions have a legal dimension. Working arrangements that are set out in the Bill would have some status in law and would be cited in the case of a dispute about the actions of one element of the tripartite structure. The hon. Gentleman knows as much about the law as me—I am not a lawyer. However, an agreed set of operating instructions could be called in aid by parties to a dispute about their implementation. I do not want to provide a full legal explanation because I am not an accountant or a lawyer. Mr. Cran: It is shameful of the Minister to claim that I was filibustering—I made two small points. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, but I like to know the meaning of words, especially when they are put together. I want to know what it would mean if our proposal was incorporated in the financial instructions. The Minister used the phrase “some status”. That could mean something or nothing. As the Minister conceded, the amendment has a point. The Opposition need to be totally convinced about the status of the financial instructions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has other points to make. However, if the Minister says that the parties are bound to the financial instructions, we will have achieved our end. The Minister cannot get away with saying that they have “some status”, because that is meaningless. Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks me to prejudge the way in which a court would determine a matter. I cannot do that. Clause 39 specifies the Secretary of State’s power in publishing guidelines. They have a legal status, but every examination would always return to primary legislation. That is the nature of the way in which such matters are examined. I cannot prejudge what weight a particular judge or jury would place on various aspects, if they were to be considered in a court of law. We are talking as though there will always be points of conflict, but that has never happened. It has been the tenor of our debates that points of contention exist between the Police Authority, the Secretary of State and the RUC, but that is not the way in which it has worked in the past, nor, I suggest, is it the way in which it will work in future. Principles are included in the Bill, attached to which are guidelines—in this case, financial instructions—by which matters would operate. If issues are included in the Bill, how can they be changed easily at a later stage, if that is necessary? The Bill gives power to the Policy Authority, with financial instructions. The working groups will agree the correct parameters of the financial instructions and they will be given to the Police Authority. The three legs of the tripartite structure will then build on that, if I may use such a description. That is the way in which legislation would normally work; there is nothing new in dealing with the issue in such a way. If Conservative Members believe that there is a justification for altering the way in which the Government should govern—not only in Northern Ireland, but across all areas for which they have responsibility—I would be interested to hear that argument. They never advanced such an argument when they were in power. This is a normal and effective way of delivering good governance in any Department: the broad parameters are set in primary legislation and then guidelines, working practices and financial instructions accompany that primary legislation, which are easily amendable if necessary. That is the underlying principle: it is about good governance of the relationship between the RUC, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. I commend the clause to the Committee and I oppose the amendment. Mr. Moss: I am delighted that, within a few years, resource accounting will be introduced in the RUC and, no doubt, the Police Authority. It will be interesting to see how many police stations are closed or opened as a result of that, since the basis of resource accounting is to ensure that every asset and facility yields the appropriate and most efficacious return. We are not far apart on the issue. The Minister indicated that he recognises the important role of the Police Authority in its responsibility to present accounts of expenditure to the Secretary of State and, eventually, as a result of a latter clause, to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He expects proper consultation to take place and he does not expect a future Chief Constable, off his or her own bat, to purchase any equipment, let alone novel and contentious equipment. I accept the fact that the words “novel” and “contentious” are unsuitable in the Bill. Mr. ingram: Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to do it? Mr. Moss: I am not a lawyer. Until the words appeared and advice was given to the Minister, I presume that he did not know that they were off limits either. Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange for the Minister—at the end of his panegyric—to tell us that all we did in 18 years of Conservative Government was include broad principles in Bills, with details being elsewhere? Is my hon. Friend surprised that the Minister does not understand that amendments are tabled to tease out the Government’s intentions? Does he agree with me that we have achieved that aim this morning, but we still do not know what the words were in respect of my second question to the Minister? 11 am Mr. Moss: I agree. We are debating the problem of who talks to whom about the purchase of equipment, especially equipment that is politically sensitive in the context of Northern Ireland. There is no disagreement; by including in the amendment the words “novel or contentious” we hope to persuade the Minister to clarify the matters that will be covered by the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State under clause 39. When members of the Police Authority read the Hansard report of our debate this morning, they will want the comfort of a promise from the Minister that those matters will be attended to. If the amendment is accepted, in whatever form the Minister thinks is appropriate, there is no dispute. It will be in the Bill for all to see and if there are difficulties in the future between a Chief Constable and the Police Authority there will be no argument. We want clarification. There have been, to use the word, contentious Chief Constables in Northern Ireland and there may be others in the future. If we are to give police authorities additional powers we and the Police Authority must be certain of the boundaries between its responsibilities and those of the Chief Constable. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 place massive responsibilities on the Police Authority. If the accounting system goes wrong and money is spent on equipment about which the Police Authority knows nothing, or if controls are not seen to be in place, the Police Authority is in the dock and carries the can, not the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable. Given the problems involved in purchasing equipment, it is important and not unreasonable for the Police Authority to want something a little firmer in the Bill. I am prepared to help the Minister. We can delete the words “novel or contentious” and leave the word “equipment” in the amendment. I assume that “equipment” would be acceptable in the Bill as it appears in plenty of other clauses. If the purchase of equipment by a Chief Constable is something about which he has to consult the Police Authority, the guidelines can specify how that consultation and reporting should take place. The guidelines could state that the Chief Constable must isolate new purchases of novel or contentious equipment in his quarterly account of the money that he or his committee spends on equipment. Thus the Bill will state that he must consult and report on the purchase of equipment. That is all we are asking for. As the Minister seemed to agree, in principle, with our aims, it is something that he might happily accept; whether our suggestion is included in clause 9 of clause 10 is up to him. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. We have taken up an important issue and made our point. The Police Authority wants the matter to be clarified. The Minister has already acknowledged the importance of consultation and, therefore, of financial reporting, as the two go hand in hand. It is no good the Chief Constable simply sending in his quarterly report, which shows that he has purchased highly contentious equipment, without first consulting. The accounting and reporting systems are the only control that the Police Authority and, subsequently, the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General have to give them the required assurance that only equipment that has been agreed to has been purchased. We are not far apart on this issue and I would be more than happy to seek a form of words for clause 9 or possibly clause 10. The important point is that it should be a duty of the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority and report on equipment purchases. In the context of Northern Ireland that should be in the Bill rather than just in guidelines which may or may not result from further discussions between the tripartite members. The Police Authority may push for such consultation and be overruled by the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable. Must there be mutual agreement on everything or can there be a two to one vote on such issues? That is not clear from the Bill? After this morning’s discussion the Police Authority will be no wiser; it will just have an assurance from the Minister that the issue will be looked at generally as the meat is put on the bones of the legislation. I am more than happy to accept the Minister’s assurance: he is an honest Minister and would not say what he did not mean. I am sure that he can see the merit in getting this sorted out, but he not be in post. He may be promoted or moved. It may be someone else who gets down to the nitty gritty.

©Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 3 March 1998