Standing Committee B
Tuesday 3 March 1998
(Afternoon)
[Part I]
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
Clause 16
The Chief Constable's strategic policing plan
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 107, in page 8, line 23, leave out `Chief Constable' and insert `Police Authority'.--[Mr. Moss.]
4.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 108, in page 8, line 23, leave out from `shall' to `issue' in line 24.
No. 109, in page 8, line 28, leave out `Chief Constable's' and insert `Police Authority's'.
No. 110, in page 8, line 30, leave out `him' and insert `it'.
No. 111, in page 8, line 31, leave out `by him'.
No. 79, in page 8, line 35, after `section', insert--
No. 112, in page 8, line 35, at end insert--
No. 80, in page 8, line 37, after `14', insert
`or the Police Authority determines objectives under section 15'.
No. 113, in page 8, line 37, leave out `Chief Constable' and insert `Police Authority'.
No. 114, in page 8, line 38 leave out
`Secretary of State and Police Authority'
and insert `Chief Constable'.
No. 115, in page 8, line 39, leave out `him' and insert `it'.
No. 116, in page 8, line 40, leave out `Chief Constable' and insert `Police Authority'.
No. 117, in page 8, line 41, leave out `him' and insert `it'.
No. 118, in page 8, line 42, leave out `him' and insert `it'.
No. 119, in page 8, line 45, leave out `and the Police Authority'.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson.
The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing this Committee with the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
Mr. Moss: I think that the words ``Welcome back to the Chair,'' are most appropriate, Mr. Atkinson, irrespective of which Chair it is.
This morning I was winding up my remarks on this series of amendments. I wanted the Minister to answer the fundamental question why it is deemed in clause 17 that the Police Authority should take ownership of, and responsibility for, the annual policing plan, despite the fact that the Chief Constable submits a draft of the plan to the authority. My amendments to clause 16 are designed to achieve continuity of responsibility for the three to five-year strategic policing plan.
Under the Government's proposals, the Chief Constable might write up a three-year policing plan, included with which would be the policing plan for the next year. He would submit that annual plan to the Police Authority, which, according to clause 17, can change it. However, clause 16 does not say that the first year of the Chief Constable's strategic plan can be changed by the Police Authority. That might mean that the Chief Constable's strategic plan for the three to five-year period would be out in the public domain and--presumably--agreed to by the Secretary of State, but the Police Authority might not agree with it.
If, under clause 17, the authority were to consider the first year of that plan, it might decide to make some changes. The Police Authority might then produce a different policing plan in year one to the plan submitted by the Chief Constable under clause 16. Does the Minister accept that that is inconsistent and illogical? It makes no sense whatever.
The Minister could have everything that he wants. He could have the Chief Constable up front, designing and formulating the plan and bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of State and the Police Authority, but there must be consistency between clauses 16 and 17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I shall make another attempt to deal with this issue.
We spent part of this morning trying to convince the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) of the design merits of the three-legged stool. Since then he has tried to convince us of the design merits of the two-legged stool. A two-legged stool is fundamentally unsafe.
The Government have tried to achieve clarity of role, within the tripartite structure, for the Police Authority, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. We discussed the strategic plan in relation to clause 16, and that plan would be owned by the Chief Constable.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has forgotten about the status of the Chief Constable. Perhaps I forgot that too, when I referred to the Chief Constable, this morning as the chief executive of the organisation. He is much more than that. He is not subservient to a board. He is on his own, with a status upon which we all agree. The Chief Constable should have much greater control over the policing operation than would be the case in other situations. It is important that there should be no ``Political'' or ``political'' interference in policing. The Chief Constable should stand apart. The Bill gives him status by requiring him to produce a three-to-five-year strategic plan that is clearly his.
As I tried to explain this morning, agreement among the three relevant parties will lead to better policing. Agreement, after consultation, between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable will lead to congruence between the three-to-five-year strategic plan and the Police Authority's yearly plan. However, it is important that each of the three parties plays a distinctive role so that responsibilities are clearly allocated.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire fails to appreciate that, by urging consistency, he would weld together the roles of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority. That would be damaging. Their roles must be distinctive. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made:--
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Cran, Mr. James
Hunter, Mr. Andrew
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Walker, Mr. Cecil
NOES
Colman, Mr. Tony
Dowd, Mr. Jim
Gapes, Mr. Mike
Hesford, Mr. Stephen
Ingram, Mr. Adam
Jackson, Helen
McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Mr. Martin
Worthington, Mr. Tony
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment made: No. 79, in page 8, line 35, after `section', insert--
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: We shall continue to differ. I have listened to the argument three times. The Under-Secretary does not approach the subject from a different angle, he simply repeats that the three relevant parties should play distinctive roles. The clause requires the Chief Constable to issue a plan, and the Under-Secretary will not budge on the matter.
However, the measure is inconsistent and illogical. The Under-Secretary said that the Government wanted to give the Chief Constable status. I thought that the partners in the tripartite structure or--three-legged stool--would be equal. I do not oppose the tripartite structure. I have already agreed that in devising a plan, the Chief Constable, or the Police Authority using the Chief Constable's draft, should take into account,
``any objectives determined by the Secretary of State under section 14'' for which subsection (2)(a) provides.
The Secretary of State is heavily involved in setting the tone and theme of the plan. If the objectives are set by the Secretary of State they will have a crucial bearing on the outcome of the strategic plan. I do not want to elevate the Police Authority to a position outside the tripartite structure. I am simply pointing out that it appears to be perfectly acceptable to Ministers for the Chief Constable under clause 17, to draw up an annual policing plan and submit it to the Police Authority for amendment before it is submitted to the Secretary of State.
If that structure is good enough under clause 17, for year one, I fail to see what material difference prevents it from being used for the strategic plan for three to five years. It is the Chief Constable's plan and he is drafting it. However, the Police Authority has an important role to play. The Government accept that approach in clause 17, but for some reason are hooked on the idea of the Chief Constable's being responsible for the strategic plan under clause 16. The Committee voted on our amendment, but I feel strongly enough about the issue to return to the matter on Report. The Government's position is glaringly inconsistent and illogical, and we shall continue to present arguments to expose that fact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
General functions of the police force
Amendment made: No. 54, in page 10, line 6, at end add--
`(4) Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (discrimination by public authorities) shall apply to members of the police force in the discharge of their functions as such.'.--[Mr. Ingram.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: We had a long debate at the beginning of the Committee's proceedings about the role of the new Northern Ireland police service. Clause 18 is concerned with the duties of the police force, but its members would not be able to carry out many of those duties without the backing of a civilian work force who, in the terms set by the Government, are now to form part of the Northern Ireland police service. The question that I want to pose is about the reasons for using one term in preference to the other. It would be interesting to know whether the Government believe that the duties listed--to ``protect life and property'', to ``preserve order'' and to
``prevent the commission of offences''--
rather than being the sole preserve of police officers in the police force, are general duties of the whole police service, bringing together the three elements that we discussed on clause 2.
Similar provisions to those in clause 18 do not seem to be included for England and Wales in the 1996 Act; nor can I find any reference to them in the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Why have those duties been included in clause 18? Where have they come from? I shall be interested in anything that the Minister of State can tell me about whether corresponding provisions can be found in any England and Wales legislation.
In its submission to the Government, the Committee on the Administration of Justice has raised the important issues of lack of human rights commitments. I do not want to debate that now, but the issue may gather pace before Report and Third Reading. Perhaps the Minister will, in discussions with the committee, tease out what form of reference to a commitment to human rights it would like the Bill to include.
4.45 pm
| 
