|
Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for elucidating that the recently published code of ethics is not a code of practice under section 27. Has the Secretary of State made a code of practice under section 27, and if so what does it contain? Does he intend to make a code of practice under the section? If so, can the hon. Lady say when that is likely to be?
Column Number: 048
Jane Kennedy: It is always galling when a Minister is asked a question and does not have the answer to hand. I may be inspired with the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Failing that, I hope to reply to him in greater detail later.
Mr. Mallon: I note with interest the point that the Minister makes. Will she agree that the way in which the membership of the board is being substantially increased is a reflection of the devolution that has taken place to date and the devolution envisaged in the 2000 Act and the Bill in relation to policing and justice? Does she agree that that is the right thing to do in the present circumstances?
Jane Kennedy: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was not a question of publishing the list of board members: it was already in the public domain. All the agreements made at Weston Park were not with all the parties. The devolution that has taken place has allowed policing in Northern Ireland to win the support of the Catholic and nationalist communities to a far greater extent than previously, so the changes that we are considering today reflect that devolution.
I said that I might be inspired to answer the point on codes of practice. So far, only one code of practice has been issued. That deals with the financial management of the board's affairs.
I appreciate that this issue is distasteful to some members of the Committee, but in the overall context in which we are making the changes and in view of our debates on clauses 1 and 2, I hope that they will give the clause a fair wind.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.
Division No. 2]
AYES
Colman, Mr. Tony
Cranston, Ross
Cunningham, Tony
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kennedy, Jane
McIsaac, Shona
Mallon, Mr. Seamus
Merron, Gillian
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Smith, Angela
NOES
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Mercer, Patrick
Taylor, Mr. John
Trimble, Mr. David
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Public meetings of the Board
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in
clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (1).
I can be brief on this amendment. I do not take exception to the clause, but I am a little puzzled by subsection (2), which reads:
''In paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (public meetings of the Board) for 'ten' substitute 'eight'.''
As I understand it, the Government wish to say ''You don't have to hold 10 meetings. You only have to hold eight.'' I have a simple query: why?
Column Number: 049
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman asks a straightforward question. The clause amends the 2000 Act to reduce the minimum number of public meetings that the Policing Board must hold each year and, more importantly, to remove the requirement that at least 28 days must elapse between meetings. Why? These changes have been introduced at the specific request of the board, based on its experience over its first year of operation. Their purpose is to give the board greater flexibility in managing its business. Again, the Select Committee, having asked a similar question, endorsed greater flexibility for the board in its report of 28 January.
The amendment would maintain the status quo in relation to the minimum number of public meetings that the board must hold each year and would be contrary to the Policing Board's express wishes. However, the Government do not intend, nor does the board, to reduce transparency. We merely want to ensure that the board has sufficient flexibility in conducting its business. The statutory requirement is a minimum. The board may want to continue to have more frequent public meetings.
As the amendment runs contrary to the board's wishes, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw it, given my assurance that we do not expect any reduction in the public transparency of the board's workings.
Mr. Mallon: I note the amendment. I note the clause. I also note what Patten said. He said clearly that the Policing Board should meet in public once a month to receive a report from the Chief Constable. There was already a reduction in Patten in the statute requiring the board to meet 10 times. The clause now requires the board to meet eight times.
I carry a torch for the board, because it is the first of its kind and is doing an enormous job in extremely difficult circumstances against huge odds, but that does not absolve it from meeting its responsibilities under Patten. I listened to the case made by the Minister. I could make a case for it not meeting in January, because January comes after Christmas, which is a time of rest, but I cannot make a case for it not meeting in August. I believe that one of the board's requirements is that it does not meet in August.
August is a holiday period, but for many in the north of Ireland it is a time when things become very difficult. I should have thought that it was the last time in the year when the board would not meet to receive a report from the Chief Constable. If we are not to endorse Patten or the present statute, it is crucial that the board meet during the summer months and should not be absolved, especially in August, from its responsibilities.
I have spoken to some board members about that. They plead, as we all do, overwork. It is true that they are overworked. They are working hard and, in my opinion, working well. However, the last people to require a statutory break in the dilution of Patten that took place in the 2000 Act are the board. For that reason, I am very concerned. I believe that that which
Column Number: 050
is in statute should not be changed, despite the board's hard work.
Jane Kennedy: I seek to reassure my hon. Friend. This request came to us with the unanimous support of all parties on the board and was, as he rightly says, a reflection of the heavy workload pressure to which board members are subjected. It is my expectation, given the way in which this board has performed over the last year, that they may well seek to have more than eight meetings. Whether or not they will be held in public is a matter for the board. They made it very clear to us that the way in which is was legislated for in the Act was so prescriptive that, as a board, it made their working life very difficult. Faced with what we felt was a reasonable cross-party request, we took it at face value and brought forward that change. I do not expect that it will in any way reduce transparency or the ability that the public has to examine the workings of the board.
Mr. Mallon: I have no wish to be the dog in the manger about this, but will the Minister confirm that as of present, the board does not meet in January or August? If that is the case and if there were to be a further reduction in the number of public meetings, could we insist that one of them be in August?
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is incorrect. I have no knowledge of a desire on the part of the board to avoid, in principle, meeting in August. As things stand, it is a matter for the board. If the situation were to be particularly difficult—it has been a difficult time over the past 15 months, not least in public order terms—and the board felt it necessary to hold a meeting, no doubt it would do so. It has conducted itself with great responsibility over the past 15 months. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that it is not our intention wilfully to dilute the Patten principle contained in the original clause. I hope that the Committee will accept that this change has been brought forward as a result of the consultations that I have had with a number of organisations—not least the board itself—on what could be done to make the working arrangements more effective. I hope that the clause will be given a fair hearing.
Mr. Wilshire: Well, well, well. I had not expected that this would develop into a debate of this sort. I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. It is always a great pleasure to do so. On this occasion he argues that he might agree to a dilution of the Patten proposals from 12 to 10, but not to eight. In the past, our arguments concerned whether or not we should stick rigidly and completely to Patten. I do not agree with that. If we stick to anything, it should be the Belfast agreement.
We are faced with a dilemma. My amendment says that we should not let it go to eight, but stick at 10. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I am anxious to agree, says that that is not enough. The only compromise that I can think of is that if the hon. Gentleman would like, on Report, to table an amendment saying ''delete 10 and insert 12'', I would be inclined to vote with him, to help him get as close to Patten as he possibly can. If he does not want to get that close to Patten in this instance—there are many arguments on why we must stick to Patten in future—I
Column Number: 051
would be undermined. I hope he argues for consistency.
Mr. Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The difference in this instance is that there is a unanimous request by the Policing Board itself concerning its timetable. I disagree with it. August is a month when the Policing Board could meet in public. The issue cannot be dealt with on Report. I know from bitter experience that there may be provisions in the Bill that we have not fully considered in Committee, which should take precedence over the number of times that the board will meet in public. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that I am making a huge concession by agreeing to move from 12 to 10.
3.15 pm
| 
