Standing Committee B
Thursday 5 March 1998
(Morning)
[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]
10.30 am
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): On a point of order, Mr. Jones.
I do not wish to delay the Committee or embarrass the Minister, but merely to gain some
information on my own account. During the debate on clause 25 in our previous sitting, I raised the
issue of the exception in clause 25(8) relating to subsections (2) (j), (2) (k) and (2) (l). I asked the
Minister to tell us whether that was a deviation from normal practice in that police associations, the
Police Federation, superintendents and the Association of Chief Police Officers were to be debarred
with regard to regulations on pensions and gratuities.
I cited current examples, and maybe the Minister considers those to be sub judice. However, I
should like him to make clear whether a process is being worked into the Bill that will prevent police
associations from interfacing with the Secretary of State about regulations on pensions and gratuities.
The Minister also alluded to the police negotiating body. Is something being cleverly worked
into the Bill to force the hand of the federation and others in respect of that body? I do not wish to
return to that debate, but I want to place it on the record that I have raised the point and that I remain
dissatisfied.
The Chairman: I do not yet have the Hansard report of those proceedings, nor was I present for
that sitting. The hon. Gentleman’s point is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the Minister
has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Further to that point of
order, Mr. Jones. We do not have the relevant Hansard so it is impossible to examine the issue in
detail. However, I assure the Committee that I believed that I had dealt with it in my response. If
doubts remain, I shall write to hon. Members clarifying the points raised by the hon. Member for
Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
Clause 29
Liability for wrongful acts of constables
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 16,
line 7, after ‘(c)’ , insert
‘subject to the approval of the Police Authority.’.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Chief Constable shall submit to the Police Authority on such dates and in such form
as the Police Authority may reasonably require details of all payments made under subsection
(2).’.
Mr. Moss: Similar provisions to those in my amendments are contained in section 14 of the
Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. It states:
“(2) There shall be paid by the Police Authority—
(a) any damages or costs awarded against the Inspector General”—
now it is the Chief Constable—
“in any proceedings brought against him by virtue of this section and any costs properly
incurred by him in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by him in the proceedings; and
(b) any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim made against the Inspector
General”—
again it is the Chief Constable—
“by virtue of this section, if the settlement is approved by the Police Authority.”
Within minutes of arriving in Committee this morning, I received a letter from the Minister
about clause 29 and that very point. No doubt his response will embellish that letter. He will know
from his discussions with the Police Authority that it believes that clause 29 is one of the most
important in the Bill. I am pleased that the minister is in dialogue with, and is listening to, the Police
Authority, and that he is seeking a way forward.
The powers in section 88 of the Police Act 1996, which covers England and Wales, are more or
less identical to those in the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. However, the Bill’s wording is very
different from the existing legislation for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, and from that for
England and Wales. The Police Authority wrote to me saying that the removal of such powers is
unacceptable. Amendment No. 84 would reinstate those powers, and amendment No. 85 would insert
a new subsection granting additional powers.
It is clearly vital that civil actions against the police are carefully and meticulously scruitinsed—
public interest demands nothing less. The public also expect the lessons learned from such actions to
be taken on board—and to be seen to be taken on board—by the Chief Constable and the Police
Authority. The public further expect diagnosed faulty procedures, or inadequate or inappropriate
conduct on the part of one or more members of the police service, to be dealt with.
There remains the vexed question of the system’s potential for the cover-up of wayward,
inappropriate or unlawful police conduct.
Mr. Ingram: Who would carry out such a cover-up?
Mr. Moss: I presume that the Chief Constable—
Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable?
Mr. Moss: The Chief Constable or senior officers might have the power to make compensatory
payments out of court. These situations may not have arisen yet, but we must ensure there are no legal
loopholes in the future.
Why else would the Police Authority be so exercised about the matter? Does it feel that in the
past things have been done—the Minister is smiling; he ought to know more than I do as he is in
charge of the police service in Northern Ireland. If the Minister were to investigate he would find
historical instances where the Police Authority was made to feel uncomfortable. There may not have
been any criminal intent or wrongdoing, but because the Police Authority was not consulted on
decisions, it bore the opprobrium of the community when details leaked out. That raises the question
of transparency and letting the Police Authority take up the consultative power enjoyed by its
equivalents in England and Wales.
We were talking about cover-ups, which would apply to stories that may hit the media and
embarrass the police service, the RUC, the Northern Ireland Office, and ultimately, the Minister and
the Secretary of State. Compensation may be paid to buy people off. We should anticipate that
possibility and frame legislation that closes loopholes in the law.
I do not imply that the present Chief Constable, for whom I have the highest admiration, would
ever get into such a situation, nor do I have evidence that previous Chief Constables get into
difficulties. Public accountability is at the heart of the Police Authority’s duties and responsibilities,
and transparency would reassure the public about the handling of these matters.
Similar problems have doubtless arisen in England and Wales, and probably in the Metropolitan
police. Concealment of police wrongdoing, on whatever scale, by compensation is not in the public
interest, especially when payment is made in secret and grievances against the police are not carried
forward by the complainant. I am sure the Minister agrees with that. Section 14(3) of the Police Act
(Northern Ireland) (1970) allows the Chief Constable to pay out
“any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim that has or might have given
rise to such proceedings.”
The phrase “might have given” suggests that payment is made before matters come to court.
Current legislation gives that considerable power to the Chief Constable, and the Bill as drafted
means that he would make that decision. He may well make the right decision based upon the
evidence, but that does not mean that there has not been corruption at lower levels—perhaps at senior
officer level—in the police service. If the evidence with which he must make the judgment is wrong,
the Chief Constable would be highly embarrassed.
10.45 am
All we ask is that the Police Authority is given back the powers that it enjoyed under the 1970
Act, and is also given the powers of police authorities in England and Wales.
Amendment No. 85 would protect the Police Authority for Northern Ireland from accusations
that it colluded with actual or alleged wrongdoing by the police. Rumours are rife in Northern Ireland,
and rumours and allegations of wrongdoing hit the media and cause difficulties. The Police Authority
must be able to stand back from bad publicity surrounding allegations. Amendment No. 85 would
ensure that the
“Chief Constable shall submit to the Police Authority on such dates and in such forms that the
Police Authority may reasonably require details of all payments made under subsection (2).”
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 are reasonable, and would replace powers and responsibilities that
seem to have been taken from the Police Authority. The Police Authority is perplexed as to why that
has happened, and has had no explanation why the powers were removed. I am glad to hear that the
Minister is talking to the Police Authority. I await to find out his progress.
Mr. Maginnis: The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr.
Moss) is important, because I am alarmed at the erosion of Police Authority responsibility. The Bill
means that the role of the Police Authority will be so neutered as to become almost irrelevant.
Under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 the Inspector General deferred to the Police
Authority when money was needed to take action against a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Chief Constable is likely to come under increasing pressure. In addition to his operational
responsibilities, the Department is adding to his agenda responsibility for all the RUC’s resources. He
must oversee an enormous agenda of work. I doubt whether, if he comes under pressure, he will have
the time or resources to examine carefully the case being brought against a policeman or group of
policemen. In the past the Police Authority could consider such matters in detail before deciding
whether to fund the defence of a policeman. However, it would be easy for a Chief Constable under
constant pressure to say, “Out of my budget of £600 million, £5,000 will not be terribly important.”
The clause does not provide the lines of accountability that are required in the interests of society in
Northern Ireland.
It is difficult for a minority party to attempt to amend one of the official Opposition’s
amendments, but any amendment tabled by me would have inserted the phrase.
“subject to the approval of the Police Authority”
at the beginning of the clause. To include it elsewhere in the clause is well and good, but
inadequate. The Chief Constable should in all things be accountable ultimatley to the Police
Authority. That would provide protection for the Chief Constable, the RUC, society and the Secretary
of State, who will be perceived, on the basis of the Bill, as the puppet master pulling the strings of the
Chief Constable in many contexts.
I support the amendment—perhaps with even more conviction than its mover.
[Interruption.] It is called damning with faint praise; that is right. My remarks have been in the
spirit of what I have said again and again. I reiterate my views because the Minister has until Report
to make considerable amends. The Police Authority’s power is being eroded, and that of the Secretary
of State enhanced. Meanwhile, the power and authority of the Chief Constable is being enhanced, but
in a way that will allow him to be dominated by the Secretary of State. Protection must be available
for everyone, in each of the strata that I have identified, from the Secretary of State down to the
lowliest member of society. There must be protection and accountability. The amendment is justified
for those reasons.
| 
