|
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that. At least we have now established that the hon. Gentleman will interpret Patten as seems appropriate on the occasion, rather than insist that we stick rigidly to it. That is some sort of progress, so I am pleased.
It is claimed that we should make the change because the board wants it, but that is a rotten reason for legislating. The board is a transitory arrangement; there will be another board in due course, as people retire and so on. Are we setting a precedent whereby we appoint more members to the board, invite them to go away and decide how often they want to meet, then provide them with an Act saying that is how often they need to meet? That seems an extraordinary state of affairs. The one reason I had not expected to hear for making the change in legislation was that a little group of people find not having to meet so often much more convenient.
Mr. Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if anything, it is extraordinary to find a provision in legislation that requires the board to meet in public a specific number of times a year? The whole provision is otiose. It is the sort of thing that one expects to be covered in a code of practice, for which there is ample provision under the legislation.
Mr. Wilshire: That is slightly better than suggesting that we should give the Secretary of State powers to decide how many meetings there are to be, which goes back to dictatorial government rather than legislation and Parliament. I hope that that offers a compromise. Are we to come back and have this discussion every time there is a change of board?
Mr. Mallon: I note with great interest the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Years of experience gave rise to the very reason why such a provision had to be enshrined in statute. What was regarded as a policing board, which was then the Police Authority and the Chief Constable, refused ever to meet in public and totally rejected transparency. That is the reason why such a provision is written into legislation.
Mr. Wilshire: I do not want to intrude on private griefs—[Interruption.]
Column Number: 052
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) cannot negotiate with civil servants from that position.
Mr. Wilshire: As I say, I do not want to intrude into a private dialogue between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Suffice it to say that there is another, much more significant and serious point that needs to be made. Most people would agree that, if we are to make progress in Northern Ireland along the lines of the Belfast agreement, policing should be at the top of the agenda for building cross-community confidence. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the board needs to meet in public and I wholeheartedly agree. I have no difficulty with that—the board needs to meet frequently. It therefore needs to be a body that is right at the top of the list of priorities for people to target. I find it strange to be told that that body, which represents an attempt to make policing acceptable across the community, is sufficiently low down the list of priorities that the people on it do not want to meet so often so that they can do other things.
There is another way of looking at the matter. If policing is so important but people do not have the time to do the job properly, they should find people who do have the time. That would be another way of solving the problem, rather than legislating for the convenience of existing members. If policing is the priority, people should give their time to it and something else should go. That would be better than holding fewer meetings.
The Minister made it quite clear that the Bill is intended to make more of the board—to give it more power and responsibility and the right to take more of the initiative. More and more work is being given to the board and it is entirely proper that it should meet in public to do much of that work. The Minister argues that the board is being given more to do and more responsibility, yet we are being asked to say that it does not need to meet as often in public. That is a contradiction.
I am deeply unhappy about this matter. I see the Minister shake her head, but it is not something for which I want to go to the stake. I have made it clear that I will sign an amendment tabled on Report by hon. Member for Newry and Armagh if he wants to increase the number. For the moment, having made my points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Funding for pension purposes
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert 'reasonably'.
My amendment is designed to do something straightforward. It would alter new section 10(1A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. New Subsection (1A) currently states:
Column Number: 053
''The Board shall submit to the Secretary of State such other information relating to the estimates submitted under subsection (1) as he may require.''
We have been round this course before—it is a hoary old argument, but I make no apologies for raising it in this Committee, as I have raised it many times before. I know the lawyer's argument, but that has never satisfied me in the past, and I suspect that it will not do so this time. I do not like legislation that states that the Secretary of State ''may require'' something. I do not like it in principle, whether or not it is couched in the way that I want.
We come back to the point about government by dictatorship. The Secretary of State can say this, that or the other, with no recourse to Parliament and no democratic debate, about what he shall require. I fully accept that issues have been resolved in that way by Governments of all political persuasions, so on this occasion, I am chastising not a dreadful Labour Government, but all Governments.
It is reasonable to insert the word ''reasonably''. If we are to give the Secretary of State powers, he should use them in a reasonable way. That is all that the amendment is designed to achieve. I do not see any difficulty about that. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Secretary of State is a reasonable person and will always behave reasonably. If that is true, why not include the word in the clause?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be reasonable, as he assures us he always is, but the word ''reasonably'' would be superfluous in the provision. Not only is the current Secretary of State reasonable, but we would contend that all Secretaries of State are reasonable. If the Secretary of State made an unreasonable request, he would be subject to judicial review, whether or not the word ''reasonably'' appeared in the legislation. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Wilshire: My prediction was correct. I have heard that argument before, it has never satisfied me in the past, and it does not satisfy me now. If the contention is that the current Secretary of State and all future Secretaries of State will behave reasonably, what is wrong with saying so? I do not think that in the past I have ever persuaded anyone that they should take that argument on board, but at least I am consistent—consistently wrong. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Accounts and audit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Wilshire: My only concern about the clause is why in principle we are making such changes at all. I am anxious that the clause should not pass on the nod, without a debate.
Column Number: 054
In relation to subsection (3), I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it is necessary to spell out the amounts, given that the 2000 Act has only a general statement of all amounts. We have moved from a general assertion of what might happen to a more specific one. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the reasoning behind that, particularly if the reasoning is that the previous arrangements for audit have been found to be too weak. We need an explanation of where the problems have been in the past, because it will be necessary, if the clause is designed to rectify such problems, to be certain that the way in which they will be rectified will work.
I might wish to speak again in the light of what the Minister says. I look forward to hearing her comments.
Angela Smith: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The reason for the drafting of the clause is the new FRS 17 accounting standards, which require employers who pay pensions out of their own resources to show in their account full details for schemes, liabilities and assets. That has to be recorded separately, and we do not want it to overshadow or draw attention away from the record of the core financial performance of the police.
The clause amends the provisions of the 2000 Act relating to accounts and the audit of the grant for policing purposes. Taking into account FRS 17, it requires the board to draw up four separate accounts for the four separate strands of money handled by the police: first, amounts placed at the Chief Constable's disposal for police pension purposes; secondly, amounts placed at the Chief Constable's disposal for other police purposes; thirdly, the police fund provided for in section 28 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and fourthly, the police property fund established by the Police (Disposal of Property) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 and falling under section 31 of the 1998 Act.
The statutory police fund is separate from the police fund that is chaired by Sir John Semple. I hope that my reassurance that this accounting measure has been brought forward because of FRS 17 will satisfy the members of the Committee.
| 
