|
Mr.Worthington: Again, I hope that I can give the assurances that have been sought.
I referred to this part of the law as having survived for nearly 30 years and having stood the test of time. It has not been used in that time, which is not to say that it is not a good law. The Bill has had a great deal of publicity but, amid these most contentious matters, there has been no clamour for change from the Police Federation, the Chief Constable, the Police Authority, the Secretary of State, the Opposition or the Ulster Unionists. No amendments have been proposed. [Interruption.] We will, as always, consider any amendments fully. No one has sought to change a difficult law. That is extremely important. We know how difficult it was to erect this tripartite structure and get a correct balance of power, as well as safeguarding the integrity and position of the Chief Constable, while at the same time allowing for the possibility of getting rid of a holder of that post. It was a tricky act.
Mr. Maginnis rose--
Mr. Worthington: I will not give way at the moment; I may be able to give the hon. Gentleman more reassurances along the way.
Mr. Maginnis: But I should like to come in briefly on that point. I accept the Minister's claim that we have not tabled amendments to clause 21, but that was because we had to struggle with the problem of how this difficult part of the Bill could be redrafted in a way that would improve it. We tried to take other steps to curtail the dictatorial powers of the Secretary of State and make the role of the Police Authority more equitable, and thus better balanced.
Had we been successful in persuading the Minister to accept amendments, we would have had some reassurance, but there has been little generosity in allaying our anxieties, so it is important to raise the issue now. We reserve the right to raise the issue on Report if there is no progress in this respect.
Mr. Worthington: But I still have not seen a specific amendment. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke about the Chief Constable's accountability to the Police Authority. I refer him to clause 21(3)(a), which states that the Police Authority,
``may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, call upon any senior officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to retire in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness''.
That explicitly raises the issue of the Police Authority's role in disciplinary proceedings concerning senior members of the RUC.
Mr. Maginnis: Including the Chief Constable?
Mr. Worthington: Indeed, that is what the clause states, and subsection (3)(b) states:
``without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)''--
which includes the Chief Constable--
Mr. Maginnis: Oh.
Mr. Worthington: Well, paragraph (a) states:
``call upon any senior officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary''.
Thus there are two ways in which the Chief Constable can be dealt with: on the action of the Police Authority; and on the initiation of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the Secretary of State being negligent in her duties. If the Secretary of State does not take the necessary disciplinary action against a Chief Constable or other senior officer, it is for the House to bring the Secretary of State to account. But there are also the powers vested in the Police Authority to initiate action, so it would not just be a matter, if I can paraphrase the hon. Gentleman, of the Secretary of State turning a blind eye in such circumstances, but of the Police Authority also turning a blind eye. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire referred earlier to belt and braces, and this is a good example of the hon. Gentleman's metaphor: it would be extremely difficult for a Chief Constable to evade the scrutiny of both the Secretary of State and the Policy Authority.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that the powers of the Police Authority and the Secretary of State in the Bill were different from those in the legislation for England and Wales. My information is that they are not different. In Northern Ireland, the powers are in section 7(2) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 whereas in the Bill they are in clause 21. In the 1996 Act for England and Wales, the Police Authority's power is in section 11 and the Secretary of State's power is in section 42.
I hope that I am responding to all the points raised by hon. Members. The unrestrained powers of the Secretary of State or the Police Authority were mentioned. The power in subsection (4) it is not and should not be unrestrained because when an officer wishes to appeal, the Secretary of State has to
``appoint a person or persons to hold an inquiry and to report''
back its findings. The Secretary of State will then
``consider any report so made.''
A senior figure will be responsible for such an inquiry, which represents another safeguard. I have now answered all the points that were raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Regulations for RUC
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 13, line 4, leave out from `section' to end of line 5.
We are making progress are we not? That seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
It is a simple amendment. Clause 25 covers two pages. The amendment would take out the final phrase from subsection (8), which deals with paragraphs (j) (k) and (l). Subsection (2) spells out the key areas of RUC activity and organisation; paragraphs (a) to (l) are identical to those in the 1996 Act for England and Wales, save for paragraph (k) which deals with pensions and gratuities.
Subsection (8) is not mirrored in the 1996 Act, which places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Police Authority and the Police Association before making regulations. But why should that consultation be restricted by ruling out discussion relating to paragraphs (j), (k) and (l)?
Let us consider them in turn. Paragraph (j) refers to
``the hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances of members of the Constabulary''.
In terms of employment, what could be more important to members of the police force? They are the most important issues with which the Police Association is involved. What is its role other than to oversee, take note and act on behalf of its members on those critical matters? Yet the provisions amount to a deletion of any discussion with the Police Association of the matters outlined in those paragraphs. That is more than puzzling, given that we now have a Labour Government and a Minister whose route has been from strong union representation. He presumably believes in discussion, consultation and the merits of a body such as the Police Association having an important say in matters relating to the appointment of police officers. Why is he putting his hand, and his mark, to a subsection which deletes all reference to such consultation?
Similarly, subsection (2)(k), which refers to pensions and gratuities, is also of considerable importance to the Police Association and the Police Authority.
11.15 pm
One wonders whether consultation with the Police Association is a statutory right; perhaps the Minister will tell us where that right is given? If it is not given in the Bill but in earlier legislation, it would be helpful if he clarified where the Police Association can see enshrined in legislation its statutory right to be involved in consultation, discussion and perhaps even negotiation with the powers that be--the Secretary of State, the Police Authority or the Chief Constable--when dealing with important matters relating to employment, especially hours of duty, remuneration, allowances and pensions.
Subsection (2)(1) refers to the issue, use and return of equipment. The wording in the 1996 Act is a little different and refers to
``the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements.''
That seems nice wording, so why has the Northern Ireland Office deemed it necessary to change the wording in the Bill from that in the 1996 Act? I do not know the meaning of ``accoutrements'' and perhaps the Minister will enlighten me, but it is a pleasant-sounding, all-embracing word. Perhaps the police in the RUC do not have accoutrements; if so, we should know why. The police in England and Wales certainly have them because it is stated in the Bill that the police are required to have some influence over them.
Why does the 1996 Act refer to ``personal equipment'' when the Bill refers only to
``the issue, use and return of equipment''
The Bill makes no reference to personal equipment or police clothing. Why the change? Police clothing is presumably issued to members of the RUC, or is it deemed to come under ``equipment''. I expect the Minister to expand on that and to tell the Committee why there is a difference.
The Police Authority for Northern Ireland believes that it should still have to say in matters relating to police pay, conditions of service, pensions and gratuities. Such issues would become even more important, if there were to be radical proposals for restructuring and reform, or downsizing of the RUC. Members of the Police Authority feel strongly that they should be consulted about those matters--as they would be under English and Welsh legislation.
The amendment seeks only to delete the references to (2)(j), (k) and (l) in subsection (8). The subsection states that consultation between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Police Association shall take place on all matters relating to regulations that the Secretary of State may make. I did not read them all, but they are all listed in the Bill and are similar to those in section 50 of the 1996 Act, apart from paragraph (k).
We ask only for the rights, powers and responsibilities which the Police Authority maintain were promised in earlier discussions. The bottom line was that the legislation would be the same as that for England and Wales. However, yet again, it is not the same. There are differences: sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle. One difference is that the Police Association and the Police Authority have virtually been told: ``You have no rights whatever. You have no influence. You have no jurisdiction. You have no input into any discussions that take place regarding hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances of RUC members, pensions and gratuities of members of the Constabulary, and the issue, use and return of equipment.''
I am flabbergasted that someone--not the Minister, I do not blame him; I am sure that when he read the clause he was as surprised as me--has decided that the Secretary of State cannot consult the Police Authority of the Police Association over these three regulations, dealing with critical issues, from that wonderful list of regulations that the Secretary of State can make.
Most of clause 25 has been lifted from the legislation for England and Wales. Apart from paragraph (k), the only difference is subsection (4), which might be related to earlier legislation--perhaps the 1970 Act. That subsection is unusual, if not unique. Will the Minister explain why subsection (4) is different from the 1996 Act and why someone has seen fit to take out any discussion about the regulations in subsection (2)(j), (k) and (l)?
| 
