|
Mr. Taylor: Is not my hon. Friend's point all the more forceful because the Police Service of Northern Ireland is severely under-established?
Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so. That is the sort of practical reason that the Chief Constable could pray in aid for his failure to be as efficient, effective and economic as he should be. The point remains, however, that the Bill ought to provide some means whereby the Chief Constable can keep his central role—a role that the Minister says is important—alongside an enhanced role for the Policing Board.
I hear what the Minister says, but it does not satisfy me. It is a greater matter than we can deal with this afternoon. I therefore suspect that I and, I hope, my hon. Friends will return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Reports of Chief Constable
Mr. Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in
clause 9, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) At the beginning of subsection (2), insert ''Except where subsection (2A) applies''.
(1B) After subsection (2) insert—
''(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply where a longer period for the purposes of (2)(b) is not agreed by the Chief Constable and the Board and, in such a case, a report shall be made within such longer period as may be determined by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.''.'.
There is a cluster of amendments, and I plead guilty to amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a cluster of amendments, but amendment No. 57 is being taken alone. Most of those other amendments are grouped. It has always been my custom, if there is a large number of amendments, to allow a stand part debate at the start of the clause rather than at the end, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have both. If he finds it convenient to engage now in a wide-ranging debate, I am happy to permit it on the understanding that there will not be a stand part debate later.
Mr. Taylor: I would like to do it that way, Mr. Gale, with your permission, because it would be quite difficult to speak to each of the amendments individually. They are part of a theme, and I would be happy to speak to them all in the context of such a debate.
Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I plead guilty to amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 98. Will those
Column Number: 059
be considered in terms of the previous cluster? I simply seek advice so that I know at which point to address the amendments.
The Chairman: The amendments have been grouped in the way that they have, partly because they are grouped legally and partly to allow, for example, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to move his own amendment. I have the flexibility to group the whole lot together, but if I do that, he may find his debate slightly curtailed.
I shall revert to plan A and suggest that we take amendment No. 57, which is scheduled to be debated now. Again, I am prepared to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate across the whole clause. We shall then move to the next selection of amendments and the final selection, which will allow the Committee a fair crack of the whip. I repeat that we shall take amendment No. 57 on the understanding that it will be a fairly broad debate and there will be no stand part debate at the end.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you for your wise ruling, Mr. Gale. I think that I shall be able to stay comfortably within your parameters—I am sure that you will tell me if I do not.
Clause 9 amends the way in which the Chief Constable is required to make reports to the Policing Board. Section 59 of the 2000 Act requires him to submit reports when required to do so by the board. However, there are currently four grounds on which such a requirement can be referred to the Secretary of State if the Chief Constable thinks that a report would contain information that should not be disclosed. It might be useful, as they are not long, to outline the four grounds.
The first ground is
''in the interests of national security''.
That is a reserved position, on which he does not disclose or report. The second exemption is because the information
''relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature''.
The third exemption is
''because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law''.
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.
However, under the existing law, which the Bill changes, there has been a fourth exemption, which was because the information
''would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders''.
The Bill abolishes the fourth exemption. We are very concerned about that and seek to put it right. That is the basis of the second of my amendments. In our view, the change could seriously undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the Chief Constable, as he will now be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the Policing Board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. We feel very strongly that that is unacceptable.
Column Number: 060
The Bill makes similar changes to section 60 of the 2000 Act, which deals with the initiation of an inquiry by the Policing Board following a report to it by the Chief Constable. Currently, section 60(3) of that Act allows the Chief Constable to appeal to the Secretary of State if he believes that an inquiry should not be held on any of the same four grounds that are set out in the Act. Clause 10 would replace those with the grounds that are set out in new section 76A(2), which is contained in clause 22. The measures that are being considered in respect of clause 9 would undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable. We seek to address the qualification of the Chief Constable's obligation to provide reports and we wish him to have the protection that he had before.
3.45 pm
Our proposed remedy seeks to provide a role in those matters for Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary and for the Secretary of State. That would facilitate delay if the Chief Constable needed more time and it would reinstate the fourth ground. When the matter was considered in another place, the Lord Privy Seal addressed it and, as I understand it, made a concession. If that is true, the Government should know about it. Currently, the Chief Constable is supposed to respond to any request for information within one month, but that period could be extended if the board agreed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn said that the Government would change the code of practice on the conduct of the board under section 271(a) of the 2000 Act, so that if there were no agreement between the Chief Constable and the board on the matter it could be referred to HMIC if the Chief Constable's concern related to the impact of a particular timescale on the police's ability to prevent or detect crime. In short, if we were to dispute the matter, HMIC would become the umpire. To address the matter by issuing a code of practice ruling would, in our opinion, go halfway—it is half a loaf. I suppose that we may even have to settle for that in the end. However, the amendments are intended to get both the fourth protection and the umpiring facility if time seems too short. We want those provisions to be written into the Bill and, ultimately, into the Act.
I hope that I have not trespassed on your patience, Mr. Gale, nor stepped outside the rules that you establish, but may I put my case one last time in plain man's terms? Where there is a dispute about how long the Chief Constable would require to make a report, we suggest that HMIC should act as umpire. We also wish to restore the fourth protection to the Chief Constable; that fourth case in which he need not disclose something that
''would, or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.''
The fourth ground must be restored, otherwise the position of the Chief Constable, his role and his work would be hampered unacceptably.
Mr. Trimble: I presume that in view of your earlier rulings, Mr. Gale, which I hope that I have interpreted correctly, you intend that this should not just be a debate on amendment No. 57.
Column Number: 061
The Chairman: Order. Let me clarify that point for the right hon. Gentleman. Sometimes it is convenient for hon. Members to engage in a reasonably wide-ranging debate when amendments to clauses are interrelated, but we are discussing amendment No. 57. We shall move on to the other amendments, including those in the right hon. Gentleman's name, in due course.
Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I shall contain myself until then.
Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Do I wait until the discussions on amendment No. 57 and the next group of amendments have finished, or do I make my contribution now? I ask your advice, because I am unashamedly confused.
The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman is confused, I have sown the confusion. We are debating amendment No. 57. I have said expressly that I am happy to allow the Committee to engage in a reasonably wide-ranging debate because other matters need to be discussed. However, following the debate on amendment No. 57, there will be a debate on amendment No. 58 and related amendments. Following that debate, there will be a further debate on amendment No. 93, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. If he has points to raise now, he may do so. Alternatively, he may wait and save his fire until we reach amendment No. 93, which he will be called on to move.
Mr. Mallon: I thank you for that advice, Mr. Gale.
Jane Kennedy: As has been said, clause 9 amends section 59 of the 2000 Act, which deals with the Chief Constable's general duty to report to the board, and it is worth spelling out those changes exactly. Clause 57 removes the grounds of referral, including the fourth ground of referral referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull. They are now addressed in a new stand-alone section 76A in clause 22, which we will debate later. The clause also amends the 2000 Act to allow the Secretary of State to oblige the Chief Constable to share sensitive information only with a small committee, rather than a full board, in the event of a board inquiry. It also allows the Chief Constable of his own volition to share sensitive information with that small committee, rather than the full board. The clause also requires him, if he shares such information with either the board or committee, to identify that information as sensitive and requires that it should not be disclosed further.
Clause 9 was amended substantially during its passage through another place. The version before us includes some detailed provision for the handling of sensitive information in the context of reports. The purpose of those provisions, and the associated provisions of clauses 20 and 21, is to ensure appropriate protection for the most sensitive information while giving the board's representatives access to sufficient information to fulfil its accountability duties properly. The grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer a request for a report to the Secretary of State are to be amended, but, as I have said, the revised grounds are set out in a separate stand-alone provision that is inserted by
Column Number: 062
clause 22. That change has been made to avoid repeated reference to the same set of criteria throughout the legislation.
I recognise that the provisions are complex, and we will debate provisions of similar complexity on the next two groups of amendments. However, the provisions give important protections that allow the Chief Constable to be as open as possible with the board on delicate matters without compromising the security of the nation or an individual.
I have much sympathy with the thinking behind amendment No. 57, and I recognise the concerns articulated by the hon. Member for Solihull. In many ways, there is not much between the Government and Opposition on the proposal. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government made it clear in another place that they recognised the need to cater for a situation in which agreement between the board and Chief Constable on the timing of a report under section 59 proved impossible, however unlikely we considered that to be. We said then that the best place to deal with that was in a code of practice on the operation of sections 59 and 60, made under section 27 of the 2000 Act. A draft code of practice is already with the board for consultation, so that is a second code of practice that is being developed. However, amendments to it will be necessary, following the Bill and our deliberations in the House.
The Government would be prepared to include in the code a recommendation that, should agreement under section 59(2)(b) prove impossible, the board should seek independent, expert advice from HMIC. We believe that it is more appropriate to deal with that through the code of practice than in the Bill. However, I undertake to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments and consider whether we should return to the matter on Report.
I want to deal with the dropping of the fourth ground. I followed the debate in another place carefully. The Policing Board's primary statutory duty is to maintain an effective police service in Northern Ireland. It would be contrary to that duty if it requested a report in a time scale that could prejudice a major ongoing investigation or operation. Section 59(2)(b) of the 2000 Act contains a provision for the board and the Chief Constable to agree a time scale for the production of such a report. I have every confidence that both organisations will seek to reach a sensible accommodation on the time scale to avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations. In addition, we will provide a role for HMIC in the code of conduct.
I have ranged more widely over the other changes that the clause makes, but I hope that I have answered all the points raised by the hon. Member for Solihull. On the basis that I shall consider his arguments further, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.
| 
