| Police (Northern Ireland Bill) Bill
|
|
The Chairman: Mr. Ingram. Mr. James Cran (Beverly and Hoderness) rose— The Chairman: Mr. Cran. Mr. Cran: It was kind of you to call me, Mr. Jones. I thought that you were going to punish me for something that I had done in the past. I am also anxious about what the Government plan to do. Conservative Members will listen excessively carefully to the Minister’s response. He is aware of the concerns that have been articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I want to get the situation clear in my mind. I am sure that if I am wrong, the Minister will put me right. Clause 29(1) provides that the Chief Constable shall be liable for any torts committed by his constables, as if he were an employer within an employee-employer relationship. However, he is not the employer—not as I understand it. In subsection (2), the Chief Constable is further provided with the power to pay damages and costs arising from civil actions and to settle civil claims. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spent some time dissecting and exploring that provision. He gave his view, and that of the Police Authority, about why problems will occur. Subsection (3) provides the Chief Constable with the power to make legal representation for his officers, and so on. That is the framework against which we are speaking. As other hon. Members pointed out, there is a further framework in the current legislation relating to policing in Northern Ireland—which is, I think, the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Section 14 of the Act contains provisions similar to those in clause 29, but, crucially, provides that it shall be the authority that pays damages and costs, approves the settlement of civil claims and arranges legal representation. That is the status quo, and many of us believe that it should be retained. Section 88 of the Police Act 1996, which, I understand, is the current legislation in England and Wales, contains similar provisions to those in the 1970 Act, and states that civil cases may be settled only with the approval of the Police Authority. If I have got that wrong, the Minister will tell me. His officials will jump up and down to advise him of that. There is consternation in the community; the Police Authority is not happy with the Bill. The Minister and others may put that more eloquently than me. I shall quote from a brief that the authority has sent me, but first I want to anticipate the Minister’s distress—he has been upset with me in the past, and he will probably be upset again—and tell him that if he wants me to produce the document in toto, I shall do so. Nothing at all will be hidden. I hope that that will assuage the Minister’s anger. The document contains the Police Authority’s views about the Government’s plans. The wording is interesting. The document states:
Mr. Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): As someone who is relatively new to these proceedings, but who listens to them with care, may I ask whether the statement which the hon. Gentleman is about to read is the considered view of Conservative spokesmen? Or is it some academic exercise, similar to the many that I have listened to, in which Conservative Members read from a document that they have not considered, just for performance reasons? Mr. Moss: He will go far.
11 amMr. Cran: I am absolutely delighted to have given way to that intervention, because it comforts me to know that Labour Members are listening to the debate. If anyone else had said that, I would not have believed it. Many people would not believe it. I shall not dwell on the matter for too long, in case you rule me out of order, Mr. Jones. Labour Members are beginning to snap. Our previous sitting lasted until 1.30 am, and they cannot take the pressure. I shall have to set up a seminar on the organisation of Committees for Labour Members. We are responsible for articulating the concerns of bodies that know a lot about the subject that we are considering. I presume to say that the Police Authority knows more than the hon. Gentleman about current legislation on the administration of the police. Mr. Hesford rose—
Mr. Cran: I have not finished. It would be appalling if a responsible Opposition did not listen carefully to the Police Authority’s views on the clause. Before the hon. Gentleman gets excited again, I want to finish the quote that got up his nostrils. The Police Authority said:
“Resolutely” is not a word that the Police Authority uses lightly. The Police Authority has made a strong statement. Therefore a responsible Opposition have to ask the Government to justify their change to the status quo. Mr. Hesford: I would like an answer to my question. Have Her Majesty’s Opposition considered those matters carefully, and is it their view that the points are worthy of further consideration? Do the amendments reflect the views of those on the Opposition Front Bench? Mr. Cran: I could get rattled. But I shall not, because we are considering a serious matter, and I like to be cool, calm and collected—the opposite of Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman simply did not listen. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and I support the status quo—until the Government justify the change. We shall then consider the Government’s response and decide whether we can agree with them. Mr. Moss: I am grateful—[Interruption.] He is not listening. He said that he was listening, but he is not. Mr. Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Jones. Is it in order to wave across the Room and say “he”? Who is “he”? The Chairman: All right hon. and hon. Members address the Chair. Mr. Moss: I would address the Chair as “you”. Mr. Cran: This is an intervention by my hon. Friend. Mr. Moss: Yes. Section 88(2)(b) of the Police Act 1996, which was passed under the previous Government, says that no moneys shall be paid by a chief officer unless the settlement is approved by the Police Authority. That is exactly what we are saying. We put the legislation on the statute book when we were in government; we are now saying that those words should be reintroduced into Northern Ireland legislation. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was thus utterly irrevelant. Mr. Cran: I am not sure that the intervention by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) asked me anything, but I shall assume that he was asking me whether I agreed with his interpretation. To finish the spat, the hon. Gentleman is rather thin-skinned, but he will get over it after a few years in this place. This could have been a short; I could have got all I wanted to say off my chest in about six minutes, but Labour Members have prevented me from doing so. Let us return to the amendment, which is reasonable. If the thin-skinned hon. Gentleman had been willing to wait, he would have heard those words, which would have answered his question. The amendment is entirely reasonable. The climate in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the climate of opinion is such as to demand transparency in arrangements. The details should not be made public, for obvious reasons, but the public expects constitutional checks and balances. I shall not go in detail into the American constitution, but its checks and balances are important. There are also checks and balances in some systems in this country. If the hon. Member for Wirral, West had been patient he would have heard me say that the checks and balances have been removed by the Government’s decision in this regard. The public will not accept that with equanimity, and neither do I. That goes to the nub of the question. I can think, of no other comparable situation in which checks and balances have been or would be removed. There must be an extraordinary good and compelling reason for that to be done, especially in the light of the Police Authority’s strong words to the effect that the provision is “unacceptable” and that the authority is “resolutely of the view” that the status quo ante must be restored. I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, in which he spoke about the potential for cover-up. [Interruption.] If the Minister will listen, he will hear that although he asked us who and what, we feel that it is the perception that matters. As my various hon. Friends have said already, we are dealing with a divided community. In that context, as my hon. Friend said, rumours abound and take over, even though they may be based on no fact whatever. My hon. Friend made it clear that he had full confidence in the Chief Constable, as do the rest of the Opposition. We have had full confidence in previous Chief Constables, but the direction in which the Government are going exposes the Chief Constable to allegations. We consider that unfortunate: he ought not to be exposed in such a way. After all, the Police Authority is peopled with extremely responsible individuals who are charged with an onerous duty. They would not be chosen were they not of the highest probity. Unless there are compelling reasons for removing this power—no doubt the Minister will reveal them if there are—dong so is, in a way, casting a slur on the Police Authority. I concede that the Minister may have something to tell us, but, in the absence of that, removing the power could be construed as lack of confidence in that body. We are completely perplexed by what the Minister is doing. The hon. Gentleman who spoke, whose constituency I cannot remember—
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 5 March 1998 |
