| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
|
|
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): The Minister has not dealt with my point that simultaneous awareness of the Chief Constable's report might result in a nod or a wink, or an explicit statement, from the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State's office, which might influence the Police Authority's response to the report. I tried to argue that that would be detrimental to the Police Authority's ability to make a fair appraisal of the report. What is the Minister's view? Mr. Ingram: I was just coming to that important matter. The nub of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Police Authority could be influenced by the Secretary of State's reaction to the Chief Constable's report--if the report went to the Secretary of State and to the Police Authority at the same time, the Police Authority could be influenced by the Secretary of State's reaction to it. There is no evidence to suggest that that has happened, although the hon. Gentleman's argument contains the implication that somehow or other the Secretary of State might seek to influence it. On what grounds would she do so, and what would she be trying to achieve? A suspicious mind does not normally rest on the shoulders of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)--his questions and speeches are normally logical and structured. I fear that he is implying that somehow or other the Secretary of State might try to bring undue influence on, and to distort, the Police Authority's consideration of the Chief Constable's report. There is no evidence to suggest that that has occurred, and it is not the way in which the Secretary of State goes about her business.
4.45 pmMr. Hunter: I do not suggest that any previous Secretary of State--or the present Secretary of State--has acted in that way, or might seek to do so. It is our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill and to ensure that it is watertight and that circumstances that have not yet happened cannot happen in future. That was the point behind my line of reasoning. Mr. Ingram: I shall not continue to debate the point with the hon. Gentleman--I understand his argument and I shall try to answer his question as best I can. Supporters of the amendments have argued that the Police Authority should have effective control over the report before it goes to the Secretary of State. However, that would substantially diminish the Chief Constable's role in the tripartite structure. He has to report to the Police Authority, which has to consider the report before the Chief Constable sends it to the Secretary of State, who deals with such matters in the House. Our differences are about that system rather than about the need to diminish the role of the Police Authority. We must ensure that the Chief Constable's status is upheld and given due prominence--it must not be seen to be subject to the Police Authority's will. I do not want to use the word ``puppet'' again, but I am sure that Committee members appreciate the logic that might take us there. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said that the Chief Constable was, first and foremost, accountable to the Police Authority. However, the Chief Constable is accountable to the Secretary of State--and, through her, to the public--and he is also accountable before the law. A unique set of requirements are placed on him. It is not helpful to argue that he could be subject to the Police Authority's will. Once the Chief Constable is ready to publish, he should do so in the public domain. He should make it clear that the views expressed are his views and that they have not been filtered through the Police Authority to the Secretary of State. There should be no dilution of his views and no interference should be brought to bear on him. It should be his report, it should contain what he considers to be the best assessment of that year's plan, and it should be published in the public domain. That would correctly elevate his status and it would put him on an equal footing with the other parts of the tripartite system. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness asked why the clause is so prescriptive about the form in which information should be set out. The answer is clear. Information should be given in a form appropriate to the Secretary of State's purposes. With crime statistics, for example, the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament and the wider public for the policing of Northern Ireland, will prescriptively say what information she wants because she knows what she wants to report on. The Police Authority is similarly accountable, and the Chief Constable is accountable for delivering the policing plan and the strategic plan and for ensuring proper, fair and equitable policing for all citizens. The prescriptive element in the clause will ensure that the Secretary of State has the information that she wants in the form in which she wants it. The hon. Gentleman also asked to whom the Chief Constable should be accountable, giving the example of a company's board of directors. I must disabuse him of the notion that the Police Authority is equivalent to a board of directors. That would make the Chief Constable subservient to it and there would be no equivalence of responsibility within the tripartite structure. In fact, the Police Authority can be more appropriately defined as shareholders who invest for the community and who are responsible for monitoring the Chief Constable and making him accountable to the wider community. Mr. Cran: I said, when I gave that analogy, that it was not exact. However, a chairman or chief executive is an equal member of a board of directors. The Opposition are edging towards the equality for two legs of the stool--the Police Authority and the Chief Constable--about which the Minister keeps talking. We do not seek a subservient relationship. Mr. Ingram: But that is precisely what the amendment will create. We are trying to ensure that the Chief Constable must report to two important parts of the tripartite structure and meet the wider public interest. Reporting simultaneously to the Police Authority and the Secretary of State gives him his own status. The amendment effectively says that he should not report directly to the Secretary of State but should go through the Police Authority. There is already a reporting mechanism for the Police Authority, which has a responsibility in all these matters on an equal footing with the other legs of the tripartite structure, each of which has its own areas of responsibility. The Chief Constable has responsibilities to the law, Parliament, taxpayers, the Police Authority and every citizen affected by the actions of officers under his direction. The clause has been constructed to ensure equality for the three strands and to avoid making one subservient to another. Subservient may be too strong a word, but it has been used, and people understand its meaning. A filter mechanism would diminish the role of the Chief Constable if it meant that he felt that he was not reporting equally to the Secretary of State and had instead to go through the Police Authority. It is the Secretary of State who must report to the House and the wider United Kingdom public on policing in Northern Ireland. The clause is not intended to elevate the role of the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): The Minister has not yet addressed a simple argument. He mentioned the 1996 Act, which covers England and Wales, and argued that the clauses are analogous to sections 22(1) and section 44(4) of that Act. I agree that clauses 47, 48 and 49 have similar wording to those sections. We seem constantly to be getting hung up on achieving equivalence among the three parts of the tripartite structure. No one argues that there should be equivalence: indeed, equivalence is not possible, as the Secretary of State is the most important leg of the stool. Certainly, the Bill gives far more power to the Secretary of State than to either of the other two legs of the stool. That is right and proper: the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. In the context of accountability, the Chief Constable can never be on the same level as the Police Authority; one is accountable to the other. The word subservient is inappropriate; I do not know why the Minister uses it. In that context of accountability, one is stronger than, or superior--not the best word to use--to, the other. The Bill attempts to make that clear, by stating in clause 48(1):
It does not say, as it might, that the Chief Constable shall submit to the Police Authority and to the Secretary of State. Why not? It should say that if it is to be an equal submission, but it does not. The interpretation is that it is part of the accountability process: the Chief Constable's report goes to the Police Authority. That is the submission. We have already carefully examined the clause that deals with the assessment of how well the Chief Constable has implemented the annual policing plan and of other matters, such as the composition of the police force. Clause 49 largely deals with ad hoc reports by the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State. Under subsection (2)(b), the Chief Constable must respond
The Chief Constable cannot hang about: the Secretary of State demands a report and it must be submitted within a month. That requirement is new: it is not in the 1996 Act. It does not appear in section 44. The Government argue that we are being presented with something similar, almost identical, to the 1996 Act, but at every twist and turn we find that some things have been left out and others added. Subsection (2)(b), which requires that the Chief Constable respond within a month, does not appear in the legislation for England and Wales, nor in the 1970 Act. Why has it been slipped in? Is the Minister fixated by dates, months and time scales? He will not change the four months specified in clause 47; he will not change the three months specified in clause 48. Clause 49 specifies a period of one month. The time periods are tight, but life is not like that. The wording in earlier legislation for England and Wales is looser; it simply states that reports should be submitted as soon as possible. If clause 48 provides for the Chief Constable to submit a report to the Police Authority, why does it not specify that the report should go to the Secretary of State at the same time? That requirement is slipped into a later clause.
5 pmClause 49(4) states:
In his answer, the Minister cited the 1996 Act. But that measure does not use those words. Section 44(4) states:
The words ``at the same time'' do not appear. The requirement for the Chief Constable to submit a report simultaneously to the Police Authority and the Secretary of State is new. The Police Authority made a reasonable point. The public perceive the accountability of the Police Authority to be on a par with that of the Secretary of State. The Police Authority believes that the Bill should make a distinction, and it suggested the amendments, which the Minister will not accept. He has not discussed the point with the Police Authority. He claims that meetings have been set up but that they have not discussed such subjects yet. The amendments reflect the position of the Police Authority up until this morning. There is some justification in its arguments and in the reasons for the amendments. There is no comparitiveness in the legislation for England and Wales. The Bill introduces new words and a new concept. The Minister quoted from the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, under which the report is submitted to the Police Authority, which is asked to send a copy to the Minister. The Chief Constable does not have to send a copy to the Minister at the same time as he submits the report to the Police Authority. The Police Authority has enjoyed a distinction historically. The report mainly deals with the policing plan that the Police Authority has established with the Chief Constable. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Police Authority should be the first recipient of the report. The Government are right in clause 48(1). If they want the Secretary of State to receive the report at the same time, provision for that should be made in clause 48(1), not later in the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 10 March 1998 |
