Standing Committee B
Tuesday 10 March 1998
(Afternoon)
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
4.30 pm
The Chairman: Before we resume, may I ask hon. Members to comply with one or two rules, which may make for better order than there was this morning? I ask hon. Members to switch off their pagers and mobile telephones, and I am grateful to see that happening. Perhaps they would also resolve--and carry out the resolution--either to keep conversations very quiet or to have them in the Corridor. If hon. Members wish to catch my eye, they should stand up; leaning forward and looking hopeful is not helpful. If hon. Members wish to withdraw amendments, perhaps they would do so promptly; otherwise they may find that the amendments have been proposed to the Committee.
Clause 49
Reports by Chief Constable toSecretary of State
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 96, in page 24, line 16, after `(4)', insert
`One month after he submits a report to the Police Authority under Section 48(1)'.--[Mr. Moss.]
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 98, in page 24, line 16, leave out from `shall,' to `submit' in line 17.
No. 97, in page 24, line 18, after `State', insert
`and arrange for it to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate'.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. James Cran (Beverley and Holderness): We shall try to accommodate you on all points, Miss Widdecombe, as I am sure will Labour Members.
This morning, we were discussing clause 49 and the serious proposition that the Police Authority believes the Chief Constable's annual report to be one of the most important ways in which he demonstrates his accountability to the authority and, perhaps more important, to the community. The authority believes that clause 49(4), which requires the Chief Constable to submit a copy of the report to the authority and the Secretary of State ``at the same time''--those are the crucial words-- diminishes its authority and standing. The purpose of our amendments is to remedy that.
I suggested to the Minister that on reflection after lunch--I met him and he was in good form and good heart, as I am--he would accept that such concerns must be taken seriously. I am not implying in any way, shape or form that the channel of dialogue that has been opened between him and the Police Authority has been broken, but it seems to need a push. I hope that in the process the Minister will be able to resolve this issue as well as others that we raised in previous sittings.
Before the Committee adjourned this morning, the Minister rose to his feet as if he were about to fire an Exocet missile or set off a land mine, but he simply asked about the Committee on the Administration of Justice. Throughout lunchtime and afterwards I was wondering about the great significance of the intervention and I am still not sure what it was. The Minister simply reminded me to refer to the representations of that body, and if he had not risen to his feet, I would have forgotten. It might be for the edification of the Committee if I took a second or two to canter over what the Committee on the Administration of Justice thinks about the matter.
You would rule me out of order, Miss Widdecombe, if I spoke about clauses 47 and 48 and I have no intention of doing so, but there is a link with page 12 of the document that was circulated by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in February 1998. The Minister said that he had read it, and if he says that he has read it, I believe that he has read it. He will remember that page 12 says:
``the reporting mechanisms proposed in this section overall are, in our opinion, far from satisfactory.''
The Minister's Exocet missile of an intervention--or so it appeared--might have been intended to stop me quoting from the Committee on the Administration of Justice because it said nothing that suited my purposes. The opposite is true. I repeat that it says:
``the reporting mechanisms proposed in this section overall are, in our opinion, far from satisfactory.''
If Opposition Members had adopted the amendment proposed by the committee it would not have been the same as that tabled by my hon. Friends. The committee's proposed amendment stated:
``The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament every report''--
the words ``every report'' are the important ones in relation to clause 49(5)--
``submitted to him/her under subsection (4), and shall append thereto the Police Authority report covering the same period and submitted in accordance with article 47.3b.''
It appears that, contrary to the Minister's suggestion that the committee is happy with the Bill, the committee is most unhappy. That is illustrated by another statement that the committee makes:
``This will mean that the Chief Constable's `general report on the policing of Northern Ireland during that year' is laid before Parliament, whereas no similar mechanism is made available to the Police Authority . . . assessment of that report.''
On that account, therefore, the Committee on the Administration of Justice is at odds with the Minister and the Government. Perhaps when the Minister replies--I expect him to do shortly--he will tell us his answer to that conundrum. The committee continues:
``At the very least, the assessment of policing which the Police Authority is expected to produce . . . should be submitted with the Chief Constable's report to the Secretary of State and the Houses of Parliament.''
Again, that seems an entirely reasonable request. Although the committee might not be supported by all members of this Committee, it none the less deserves an answer. The committee's final statement in the section relating to clause 49 is especially deserving of an answer. It is a fairly stunning statement:
``Otherwise, one must question the value of any scrutiny function afforded by the Police Authority.''
That is an arresting statement, and although the committee's conclusion is not entirely the same as that of the Police Authority, the anxieties lying behind the different amendments that it proposed are almost identical.
I will not try the Committee's patience further, but I ask the Minister to consider our arguments sympathetically. We will temper our reaction in the light of the Minister's response.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have had a longer debate than I expected on the amendments. I shall respond to some of the earlier points made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). He spoke as if there was a new dawn--those are not the words that he used--or a new realisation of the need for officials, the Police Authority and me to consult. We have not gone away; we have been waiting to participate in such consultation. Many offers have been made to achieve that objective. The process is now under way because the Police Authority has decided to discuss the working group, which it would not do before. There has not been a dereliction of duty by me or my officials, nor has there been any unwillingness to participate in such discussions.
Mr. Cran: Does the Minister accept that we did not intend to accuse him of dereliction of duty, or of anything else? But it did seem to almost everyone that the need to kick-start the relationship was an important objective. That was our only point.
Mr. Ingram: It is good, Miss Widdecombe, to know that I am not being accused of anything because that will help us to make more rapid progress.
I raised the matter as it relates to the CAJ, which has been selectively quoted, not because I wanted to debate its opinions but because the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has consistently referred to it. He omitted it in this instance and I was worried that he was not going to give us the benefit of his interpretation of its opinions. I mentioned the CAJ to help the Committee and to ensure that he did not fall down in his duties as the CAJ's spokesperson.
We must deal with the nub of the argument. The amendments would require the Police Authority to hold the Chief Constable's annual report for one month before it was forwarded to the Secretary of State and published. I have listened to the debate and, having considered the Bill's procedures, I see no good reason for the amendments. The Chief Constable would not have the same control over the publication and distribution of his annual report, which is, after all, his document. That power is given to every other chief constable in the United Kingdom by sections 22(1), 22(2) and 44(4) of the Police Act 1996 and section 15 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as amended. The amendments would deny the Chief Constable of the RUC the proper control that he should have over his report.
The amendments would introduce a delay into the publication of the Chief Constable's annual report for no good purpose. That would weaken the accountability of the Chief Constable to the wider public because it would deny to the people of Northern Ireland the knowledge contained in the report. The amendments would also blur the clear demarcation of responsibility that the Bill is designed to introduce.
The Bill contains generous provision to ensure that the Police Authority is able to make public its view on the policing of Northern Ireland. Elements in the Bill allow the Police Authority to hold the Chief Constable to account and to make its views on policing and the police plan known. The amendments would place further restrictions on the Chief Constable's ability to comment on policing in Northern Ireland and would not add to the authority's role. However, they would detract from the quality of relationships and the proper balance of views that the tripartite structure is designed to ensure, including how it is perceived and received by the public.
| 
