Standing Committee B
Thursday 5 March 1998
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]
Clause 38
Codes of practice
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 87, in page 20, line 17, after `to', insert `procedures for'.--[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 amendment No. 88, in page 20, line 18, at end, insert--
`(1A) Before issuing any code of practice the Secretary of State shall consult the Police Authority.'.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I think that I had almost finished. I know why we adjourned early before lunch. It was because the Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), was having a little party. It is his birthday today and we should record that.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It is not traditional for the Whip to appear on the public record, but I should explain that that was not the reason why we adjourned early. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind regards and should put it on the record that it is the hon. Gentleman's birthday tomorrow. Strangely enough, he is a few years older than I.
Mr. Moss: We shall leave it to the Committee to decide who looks the older of the two.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): On a point of order, Mr. Jones. We adjourned for lunch earlier than expected, because the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) had finished his contribution.
Mr. Moss: I have finally remembered that, yes, I had.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I shall not detain the Committee for more than a moment or two on the amendments. I was briefly encouraged by the Minister's comments on clause 37 and I particularly note, if I understood correctly what he said, that he is prepared to consider, at least in some circumstances, a consultation role for the Police Association as well as for the Police Authority. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will apply the same sentiments as were expressed on clause 37 when he addresses these amendments. In clause 38 we detect that further lack of consultation and a further arbitrary power being bestowed on the Secretary of State, and we do not like what we see.
To set the amendments in their context, clause 38 provides for the Secretary of State to
``issue, and . . . revise codes of practice relating to the discharge by the Police Authority of any of its functions.''
We see here another manifestation of the imbalance and lack of fairness in the tripartite structure of so much of the Bill, to which we have previously drawn attention. Yet again the Secretary of State is being given what amounts almost to dictatorial powers, and amendments Nos. 87 and 88 seek to redress that position.
Amendment No. 87 inserts the words ``procedures for'' into subsection (1) and amendment No. 88 adds a new subsection (1A):
``Before issuing any code of practice the Secretary of State shall consult the Police Authority.''
If amendment No. 87 were accepted, subsection (1) would read:
``The Secretary of State may issue, and from time to time revise, codes of practice relating to procedures for the discharge by the Police Authority of any of its functions.''
This morning my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire referred to amendment No. 87 as a small amendment. I am not sure that it is as small as all that. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I believe that it has some significance and is worthy of merit. Amendment No. 88 self-evidently requires the Secretary of State to consult the Police Authority before issuing any code of practice.
The amendments have a common theme--they would enhance the status and operational independence of the Police Authority while correspondingly restricting the power of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 87 would mean that the Secretary of State would issue or revise codes of practice relating not to
``the discharge by the Police Authority of any of its functions'',
but to ``procedures for'' the discharging of those functions. That is a significant distinction. The key consideration is that it is not for the Secretary of State to dictate in detail to the Police Authority how it should discharge its functions. We argue that it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to be at arm's length. He or she should issue or revise codes of practice rather than having the power to intervene arbitrarily and directly.
Amendment No. 88 advances the same theme and would mean the Secretary of State having to consult the Police Authority before issuing any code of practice. It can be argued that it would be intolerable for the Secretary of State not to do that and instead arbitrarily to impose on the Police Authority a code of practice without consulting it first. Given that that would be intolerable, it is surely right for the Bill to specify that such consultation should take place--hence amendment No. 88.
The amendments are intended to help ensure that the authority has appropriate status and independence, not least in its dealings with the Secretary of State. They would therefore strengthen the authority appropriately.
Mr. Worthington: Clause 38 will enable the Secretary of State to set out publicly how key aspects of the relationship between the Police Authority and the Secretary of State are to be governed. I would point out that in referring to the Secretary of State, we are talking about the Secretary of State enforcing the will of Parliament. The accountability of the police force and everything that is publicly funded must lie with Parliament. I would therefore resist the assertion that they are dictatorial or pre-emptive powers; they are powers invested in Parliament through the Secretary of State.
I am not convinced of the need for amendment No. 87, which I think the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) would agree is the lesser of the two amendments. Section 39 of the Police Act 1996 uses precisely the same wording as the clause, and I am not aware of it causing any problems in England and Wales. I do not think that a case has been made for changing the wording.
Amendment No. 88 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult the Police Authority before issuing it with codes of practice. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said this morning, we would accept such an amendment in principle, and an amendment will be introduced on Report. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 88. We will come back on Report with procedures relating to this cluster of clauses and they will deal with the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating comments made before lunch by the Minister of State, who assured the Committee that the Government would carefully reconsider clauses 37 to 39, with a view to incorporating at least some Opposition aims into the Bill, perhaps by tabling amendments on Report.
The Minister referred to section 39 of the 1996 Act. He said that the wording of clause 38 was lifted from that section. I agree. Section 39(3) has not, however, been transferred across. That important subsection states:
``The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any code of practice, and of any revision of a code of practice, issued by him under this section.''
Clause 37(2) requires the Secretary of State to
``lay before both Houses of Parliament any statement of principles''.
Northern Ireland legislation will include that requirement.
The 1996 Act states that the Secretary of State--the Home Secretary, in terms of that Act--
``shall lay before Parliament a copy of any code of practice''
that he would draw up for police authorities in England and Wales. The Bill, which applies to Northern Ireland, omits that subsection. I shall not say that that is an oversight; I am sure that it is not. However, I am puzzled about why the requirement that is stated clearly in clause 37(2) is not repeated in clause 38. For that matter, the requirement relating to codes of practice does not appear in the general guidance covered by the next clause or anywhere else in the group of related clauses.
The Minister was right to preface his remarks by saying that the relevant powers are given to the Secretary of State because he is responsible to Parliament. That is why the 1996 Act states that the codes of practice shall be laid before Parliament. Parliament would be able to see proposed codes of practice and to scrutinise them, and would perhaps be able to comment on them. In the case of Northern Ireland, however, that will not be done, although it is done in section 37.
Will the Minister deal with that matter, or at least tell the Committee why it has been deemed appropriate to omit the relevant subsection from the clause?
I shall make another general point. Government amendment No. 55 changed the word ``may'' to ``shall'' in clause 37. Clause 38, however, states that the Secretary of State ``may'' issue codes of practice. If he shall issue a statement of principles, why should not the word ``shall'' be included in clause 38, and applied to codes of practice? Why is the word ``shall'' not used in this instance? The Government have not proposed to make that change. The Government should, either in relation to the amendments or to clause stand part, clarify why such a change is deemed appropriate in one instance but not in another.
4.45 pm
Mr. Worthington: We can listen to what the hon. Gentleman says and consider the issue. I have not considered it before, but from a quick look at it, it seems appropriate to say ``may issue''. There is no compulsion to issue codes of practice frequently, but one could be issued when the Secretary of State judged it necessary. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue is not crucial. We can, however, consider whether a small one-word change needs to be made.
The hon. Gentleman's first point concerned the difference between the English and Welsh legislation and the Bill. The difference is just a question of scale. The codes in England and Wales cover 43 police authorities. There must be an opportunity for local police authority objections to be aired and dealt with in a framework such as that offered by Parliament. In Northern Ireland, grievances can be raised directly with the Secretary of State.
The Bill contains the requirement to lay matters before Parliament where necessary. The Secretary of State's objectives, which are dealt with in clause 14, and the statement of policing principles, which is dealt with in clause 37, have significant implications for everyone in Northern Ireland and not just for the Police Authority and the Secretary of State. We have, therefore, said that they must be laid before Parliament. The guidance issued under clause 39 is primarily a matter for the Police Authority, the RUC and the Secretary of State. It is, therefore, not necessary to lay it before Parliament. Furthermore, there is a direct right of access to clear issues up. That is a sensible use of the difference in Northern Ireland. The Government wil introduce proposals on Report to strengthen the consultation that would occur in any case.
| 
