Standing Committee B
Tuesday 10 March 1998
(Morning)
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
Clause 45
Research and Advice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
10.30 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Welcome back to the Chair, Miss Widdecombe. I shall speak briefly, as we had an important debate on clause 45 at the end of our last sitting when we discussed amendment No. 93. The Minister rejected my amendment on the basis that the research to which clause 45 refers was such that the Secretary of State would wish to contribute to it on a United Kingdom-wide basis rather than having research specific to Northern Ireland. Although research would apply to the Northern Ireland police service and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it would be used to contribute to wider research projects.
I see the merit in that, as important lessons can be learned from the operational activities of the RUC and of the whole police service in Northern Ireland. They face one of the world's best organised terrorist groups and have had considerable experience during the troubles of dealing with civil unrest and terrorist activity. There is great merit in using the lessons learnt and the expertise and skill of the RUC and the rest of the police service for wider research projects.
However, the Bill ought to give the Police Authority--or the Secretary of State in consultation with the authority--the ability to become involved in Province-wide research. Clause 45 does not make it clear that that is to be the case. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, in its submission on the Bill, said:
``The value of policing research bodies was so obvious in all of the jurisdictions CAJ visited, we would propose making this a duty. Furthermore, we propose that this be a duty imposed on the Police Authority rather than the Secretary of State.''
The committee put forward some ideas on amendments which went much further than those the Opposition have suggested. We thought that the Secretary of State could, after consultation with the Police Authority, set up bodies to undertake research. The CAJ believes that that should be the responsibility of the Police Authority, not the Secretary of State.
Clause 2(3) places a heavy responsibility on the Police Authority. It states:
``The Police Authority shall secure that the Northern Ireland Police Service is efficient and effective.''
In the context of that overarching duty, the Police Authority will need to establish research bodies to ascertain whether it fulfils the duty that that provision outlines. We believe that clause 45 should refer to the Police Authority's involvement in and influence on research. The CAJ goes even further and claims that undertaking research should be the prerogative of the Police Authority.
We agree with the Minister that it is important for Northern Ireland to be part of the wider research sphere, but I do not understand why that cannot go hand in hand with allowing the Police Authority to establish research bodies. The measure should contain in further reference to research. I leave it to the Minister to decide whether the addition can be made in later clauses or in the schedules.
Research is important, and is deemed important by the Police Authority, which wishes to be involved in it. That is right and proper. Although we did not push our amendment to a Division, the Minister should reconsider the matter and give the Police Authority powers to instigate research. It needs to do that to fulfil its duties under clause (2)(3).
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Welcome back to our proceedings, Miss Widdecombe, I, too, have been away. I did not attend our previous sitting because I was engaged on ministerial duties at the intergovernmental conference in Dublin, and the transcripts of the Committee's proceedings do not always give the full flavour of the exchanges.
Nothing precludes the Police Authority from undertaking research. Our debate is about whether that should be enshrined as a power, or duty, in the Bill. It could be argued that that is unnecessary. However, given that I was not privy to the full flow of the discussion, I undertake to consider the matter further. The Police Authority has the right and responsibility to carry out research. In the case of a major investigation, instigated by research sponsored by the Secretary of State, consultation between the Secretary of State and the Police Authority would occur. There would be communication between the Secretary of State and the Police Authority about the necessity of research and the purpose of an inquiry. Such matters would be in the public domain irrespective of consultation.
I shall take advice and consider the matter further on Report, although I do not believe that the addition that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) proposes is necessary.
Mr. Moss: The Minister's response is similar to that of the Under-Secretary of State, who deployed similar arguments in the previous sitting. The Minister also said that he had studied all the clauses with his officials before presenting them to the Committee--perhaps he thought that we were starting on clause 46 or 47. I am grateful to him for saying that although he comes to this afresh, he will consider the matter. As he rightly says, there may be a facility for the Police Authority to undertake research for its own purposes, and no one would preclude them from doing that. A provision does not have to be included in the Bill.
We debated the matter reasonably and amicably in our previous sitting. I withdrew the amendment on the basis that a strong and powerful point had been made about the Secretary of State's powers to involve the Northern Ireland police service in research to assist on a United Kingdom basis--or on an even wider scale--to which I have no objection.
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): I listened to what the Minister said, but in the light of financial constraints in the financing of the Police Authority, would it not be difficult to predict what sort of research will be considered necessary? Will the Minister reassure us about that financial aspect?
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Under the financial arrangements, a grant is made to the Police Authority. As we discussed earlier, moneys for Police Authority purposes are ring-fenced, and are separate from those for police purposes, on which the Chief Constable draws down. It is not specified what the Police Authority's expenditure shall be earmarked for. In early discussions as part of budget negotiations with the Secretary of State and the Minister, the Police Authority could justify the way in which it would like money to be allocated. I would imagine that that is probably how it would be done. However, research is not specifically recognised in the Bill as an important function of the Police Authority. The availability of resources to undertake research is not mentioned in the Bill.
My hon. Friend's question would be better answered by the Minister. The Police Authority expressed anxiety that under the clause it was not to be involved on consultation on research. In its submissions to us, it said that it did not believe that it had the power to undertake any research, or that sufficient resources had been allocated for that purpose.
Mr. Ingram: We could end up making heavy weather of the matter; I hope that we will not. Nothing currently prevents the Police Authority from undertaking such research. Under the proposed provisions, it would have its own grant. If it wanted to use a substantial amount for research purposes, that wish would be expressed as part of its bid for that grant. Small-scale research would not be contentious--although I use that word carefully. However, wide-ranging, potentially contentious and in-depth research that required checking and double-checking would require substantial sums and would be subject to discussion.
Ultimately, like any other public body, the Police Authority has a fiduciary duty and must live within proper expenditure limits. We shall therefore be advised as to whether research should be included and defined.
I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is already recognised in the Bill. Moreover, financial regulations may cover actions taken by the Police Authority in relation to such expenditure. I do not think that there is much more to be said. I said that I would re-examine the matter and consider the points that were made--although I hope that hon. Members also accept my reservations. Change will not necessarily be along the lines that I suggested. The hon. Gentleman can return to the matter on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Expenditure by Secretary of State for police purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
10.45 am
Mr. Moss: The wording of the clause, which is very short, mirrors that used in section 57 of the Police Act 1996, although there is a slight rewording: the legislation for England and Wales uses the word ``considers'' but the Bill uses the word ``thinks''. The Bill states:
``The Secretary of State . . . may make such contribution . . . as he thinks necessary''.
I do not know why the word ``considers'' was changed; in this context, pretty well all the other words in the 1996 Act were used in the Bill. Perhaps there is a subtle difference between ``considers'' and ``thinks''. If so, I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about it. I could not justify tabling an amendment on the matter.
Section 57(3) and (4) of the 1996 Act give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations. Subsection (3) states:
``The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for requiring all police forces in England and Wales to use specified facilities or services, or facilities or services of a specified description''.
Subsection (4) continues:
``Before making such regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult . . . persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities, and . . . persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police.''
He will consult the organisation representing police authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland before making regulations, which refer to services.
Clause 46 states:
``The Secretary of State may . . . make such contribution to the provision or maintenance of such organisations, facilities and services; and . . . make such other payments . . . as he thinks necessary''.
When is it deemed unnecessary to include in the Bill the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) of section 57 of the 1996 Act, which give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations? He or she would be able to ensure that the Northern Ireland police service was involved with the organisations, facilities and services that he or she established. Much of the wording of the 1996 Act has been transferred to the Bill, and I cannot think why there should be a difference in this case.
An important power seems to have been set on one side--although I am not necessarily asking for the Secretary of State to have more powers. Most of the Bill's provisions give the Secretary of State powers that the Home Secretary in England and Wales does not enjoy. That important power has been omitted either because it is deemed to be unnecessary or because the matter has been overlooked. I look forward to the Minister's response.
| 
