| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Goodman: I apologise to the Minister in advance if she has already covered the point that I am about to raise. If she has, I am sure that she will interrupt me and I shall sit down. Section 25(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has alluded, states:
As I understand it, the Minister wants to amend the section so as to delete the words from ''but'' to the end. I ask myself the question that perhaps the Minister would address: let us suppose that the members of the board—whose names I look forward to seeing later today—following the proceedings of the Committee, see that they are no longer required to pursue objectives consistent with those under section 24 of the 2000 Act. Is there a possibility that the Secretary of State, who has a duty to consider long-term objectives, and the board, which has a duty to consider objectives, may diverge in the objectives that each seeks to reach? If so, Column Number: 030 I welcome the Minister's view. It seems possible that by deleting the words from section 25(2) as she seeks to do, she could introduce, perhaps unwittingly, a divergence between the objectives, which could damage the stability of policing in Northern Ireland.
10.45 amJane Kennedy rose—
Mr. Wilshire rose—
Jane Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene before I have opened my mouth, or was he trying to catch the Chairman's eye? Mr. Wilshire: I was conscious that because I moved the amendment, I would bring things to a conclusion if I spoke, so I wanted to let the Minister say what she wanted first. The Chairman: That is proper. I call the Minister. Jane Kennedy: I seek the leave of the Committee to respond to the valid question asked by the hon. Member for Wycombe. He was right to use the terms that he did to describe what we have done. The value of the change that we are proposing is the recognition of the board's independence. We do not expect that that would mean wholesale changes on the ground. Both the Secretary of State and the board will continue to have the interests of policing in Northern Ireland at their hearts, and both will have an interest in determining a sensible direction to achieve that. The Secretary of State's objectives are aimed at the longer term, while the board's objectives are more medium term—over three to five years. In reality, the objectives will continue to be consistent with each other, and if that is the case, so much the better. It is important for that to happen because both the Secretary of State and the board conclude that that arrangement is more appropriate than making one subservient to the other by statute. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Goodman: Is the Minister saying that she would be happy for the objectives of the Secretary of State and the board to diverge somewhat? If so, to what extent? Jane Kennedy: I would not envisage divergence. However, it is possible to contemplate a situation in which the board considers its short and medium-term role and responsibility and, given its responsibilities for managing budgets and the estate of the Police Service, it might determine objectives that it wishes to discuss with the Secretary of State because they might be perceived to diverge. That is all underpinned by the need to achieve agreement between the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite arrangement—in the interests of good policing in Northern Ireland, which we discussed in our earlier debate. Mr. Wilshire: I have worked for a long time on the Texas principle of politics: if one tables sufficient amendments or asks sufficient questions, oil will pop out of one of the holes that has been drilled. On this occasion, something has emerged that I had not anticipated when I tabled the amendment: I have heard things that give rise to serious worries. The hon. Member for Newry and South Armagh said that the Column Number: 031 provision is what Patten was all about. I was not very keen on that to start with, and I am even less keen on it if this provision is what will happen.Mr. Mallon: After all these years of friendship with the hon. Gentleman, I had hoped that he might get the name of my constituency right sometimes. Mr. Wilshire: I do try, but I get confused because the name keeps changing. The hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, although I would not want to bore the Committee with some of the things that we get up to on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. I shall do my level best, and I consider myself told off; it will not be the last time that I get told off during the Committee. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. When the Minister responded to what I said about my amendment after I said that I would be interested to hear why the Government wanted to delete the words, I received a reply about both my amendment and the clause. Would it be appropriate, therefore, to deal with such matters now and not have a stand part debate, or would you prefer the two issues to be debated separately, Mr. Benton? The Chairman: It might be as well to restrict ourselves to the amendment for the time being. As things stand, I am not disposed to take same the action as I did on clause 1. This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, but if at the end of the debate on the amendment I consider that the clause has been fully discussed, we shall forgo a separate discussion on it. We shall see what happens as we approach the clause stand part debate. Mr. Wilshire: That advice is very helpful, Mr. Benton—but it leaves the choice with me. I will opt to comment only on my amendment, concerning the words ''or to other matters''. My principle of drilling holes to produce something worth debating is designed to find out the Government's intentions in clause 2, and if we can have a separate discussion on that, it will not become confused with my amendment. The Minister did not give a clear explanation why the phrase ''or to other matters'' was relevant. The argument was about giving the board more power, but that is not the same issue to which I referred. I was talking about giving the Secretary of State, the board or anyone else the power to do something, and then tagging words to the effect of ''or it can do what it likes''; the other issues that I want to consider can be taken in conjunction with the clause. The hon. Lady heard what I said, but declined to give me a satisfactory explanation. That comes as no surprise, but as I got up early and am in a reasonable mood, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Wilshire: What concerned me about the Minister's sentiments in the previous debate was that we have now reached the point at which the board will have established itself and could realistically be Column Number: 032 allowed to do more. That raises two questions. The board may be good and developing well, but it is possible that in the future the whole thing could get out of hand, but by then it will be able to do what it wants if clause 2 remains in the Bill.Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. At some stage, the board may not be not as good as the previous board. However, the Secretary of State, too, may not be as good as previous Secretaries of State. Surely there are sufficient checks and balances in the Bill to ensure that in either of those cases, the policing objectives would be protected. The hon. Gentleman should consider that when he talks about a board deteriorating. It is not necessarily the case that all Secretaries of State show great wisdom when they arrive. Mr. Wilshire: Absolutely not. Otherwise, however, for once I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Under clause 2 the Secretary of State will lay down long-term objectives that must be followed by the board. However, the Government are seeking our agreement that the board need not follow the long-term objectives of the Secretary of State. The clause will remove the words:
Are we really saying that a United Kingdom Minister will set the overall objectives for policing part of the state, but that those objectives can then be disregarded? If so, why does the Surrey police authority not have the same power to disregard the objectives of the Home Secretary? I do not know why we in the United Kingdom should allow a police authority, or a board—call it what you like—in one part of the kingdom to overrule the Secretary of State of the duly elected Government of this country, when an authority in another part of the kingdom cannot. In a United Kingdom, that would be a dangerous route to go down. Mr. Mallon: I hoped for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was asking a rhetorical question—but he makes a valid point. In the immortal words of a former leader of his party, we are not the same as Finchley. What is happening to policing in Northern Ireland is not the same as what is happening in England and Wales, for one reason: there has been broad agreement that responsibility for policing and justice will, in effect, be devolved at some point to the new Administration in Northern Ireland. As a result, it is almost inevitable that legislation will be written with one eye on that eventuality. That is why Northern Ireland is different, and why it is necessary to ensure that the board has the status to make decisions that reflect the needs of Northern Ireland, rather than insisting on the technicalities that the hon. Gentleman mentions concerning the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 25 February 2003 |
