| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
|
|
Ross Cranston: Is the answer not that argued by the right hon. Gentleman about the first group of amendments? He said that ''consult'' meant genuine, bona fide consultation. He then said that inserting the words
was only a semantic difference. The same applies to ''take account'', which means to take account in a genuine, bona fide way. That is not exactly equivalent to taking account so that one is absolutely consistent, but the phrase has a great deal of substance. Mr. Trimble: I take the serious point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we had used the term ''take account'' from the outset, there would be a strong argument in the terms that he used. My worry is that removing ''consistent'' from legislation and inserting other terminology is likely to be interpreted by future members of the Policing Board, and even the courts, as indicative of Parliament's deliberate intention to move away from the element of consistency. That opens up rather dangerous territory. The argument shows that although some distinctions may be semantic, there might be consequences—perhaps unintentional consequences—of the semantic games that people are playing. That is why several of the Bill's provisions are ill advised because they will get us into the danger to which I referred. Mr. Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman is quite knowledgeable about the semantics of all this, but will he contribute to the knowledge of the rest of us and tell us what he, as a lawyer, sees as the substantive difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''? I do not want to prolong the debate on semantics but as he is seeing everything through semantic-tinted glasses, I would have thought that he would oblige us with definitions. Mr. Trimble: I am not quite sure when ''having regard to'' entered our discussions. We are on a spectrum or continuum with regard to the weight attached to these matters, which is what my point relates to. We must examine the issue against the background of the clear statement in paragraph 6.4 of the Patten report, which is that
In order to be consistent with Patten, the legislation must be framed so that the Secretary of State—no one Column Number: 037 else—sets long-term objectives, and other people must operate in the context of those objectives.Mr. Mallon: I do not want to be a pest, but it would be a great help to many members of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would address the substantive legislative or legal difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to'' in terms of semantics. Mr. Trimble: The distinction that I am drawing is framed as to be consistent with the objective in the phrases that are being deleted from section 25 of the 2000 Act. I am worried because the terms will disappear under the Bill, and that disappearance could undermine paragraph 6.4. That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on it for a moment.
11.15 amMr. Goodman: When I asked the Minister about the implication of the removal of the words
to which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann referred, I received an interesting answer. However, I am worried about it because the hon. Lady said that there was a clear difference between long-term and medium-term objectives in policing. She suspected that there would not be a divergence of the sort that I described, but I am not entirely sure whether her answer cleared up the worries raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Inevitably in such matters, there will be real debate about long-term objectives and what the 2000 Act calls objectives, but which are medium-term objectives. One person's view of a long-term objective can be different from the view of another person. The view of the Secretary of State may not be the same as that of all members of the board or some members of it. I am worried about the deletion of the words
because their removal will introduce a new element of uncertainty. I do not for a moment want to go back over previous debates, because you would rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Benton, but the theme that emerged in relation to the previous clause is that elements of uncertainty are being introduced. I do not want to risk the ire of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench by suggesting that I want to force the matter to a Division, but genuine elements of uncertainty are being introduced that the Minister has not fully addressed. Jane Kennedy: This has been a useful discussion about the intention of clause 2. We must consider the changes within the overall context of the responsibilities that weigh upon the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite relationship that we have discussed. The board's responsibilities are that it should secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland and ensure that they are efficient and effective. Column Number: 038 The 2000 Act describes the responsibilities of the police. This is one of those occasions when the Minister's reply to such a thoughtful and probing debate becomes important. As I said earlier, it is our expectation that, in reality, the objectives that are worked through by the Policing Board will continue to be consistent with the objectives developed by the Secretary of State or a justice Minister. There is such an imperative on each of the three partners within the tripartite relationship to ensure that police in Northern Ireland are efficient, effective and carry through their responsibilities. The hon. Member for Wycombe overstated what I said. I did not say that there was a clear difference, although there are differences between the responsibilities and development of long-term, as opposed to medium-term, policies and objectives. However, it is important that the board's development of policies and practices, within the overall framework of those responsibilities, is consistent with those of a justice Minister or a Secretary of State because both agree that that should be the case, rather than because the statute requires it to be so. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made a strong argument about the interpretation of the Patten report. It remains a fact that the board would be required to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North rightly said, that is a significant responsibility bearing down on the board in the development of its objectives. On that basis, we believe that the change that we are making is appropriate. It properly enhances the status of the board and allows it to operate with greater flexibility, but within the constraints appropriate to the circumstances that we envisage in Northern Ireland. Mr. Mallon: I shall try again for the last time. Will the Minister help some of us out by giving her understanding of the difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''? Jane Kennedy: We have often discussed ''taking account of'' and the nuances of that and other phrases when debating legislation. There is a significant and important difference between taking account of and being consistent with. The latter implies a requirement for the objectives that we are discussing to be much more closely in line with, and constrained by, the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. One would read into ''take account of'' that the board, in developing its objectives, must not only consult on but have in mind the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives. Mr. Mallon: That is kind of the Minister, but it is the distinction between taking account of and having regard to that I am interested in, not taking account of and being consistent with. Jane Kennedy: I am obviously making heavy work of this. It is true that, in law, there is no distinction between the two phrases. However, it is important for the interpretation of the evolving development of policing in Northern Ireland that we take account of—I did not mean to use that phrase—how we hope that Column Number: 039 the accountability and management of policing will develop. The changes that we propose do not go so far as to justify the concerns expressed by Committee members, and reflect the changing responsibility that we seek to place on the board in enhancing its position and role in Northern Ireland.Mr. Taylor: May I endeavour to help the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh? ''Consistent with'' is a heavier discipline than ''taking account of''. I could take something into account and partially disregard it. Question put and agreed to. Column Number: 040
|
| |
| Prepared 25 February 2003 | |
