Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister outline her response to the accusation that is frequently made in Northern Ireland that members of Sinn Fein have been on local councils since 1985, so they have been subject for 18 years to the precise exclusion that she has outlined. Has it ever been tested by the Government?

Jane Kennedy: I may be wrong, but I should not have thought that it would be a matter for the Government to remove them. The disqualification clause should apply, but it should be tested on an individual basis. An individual would not have been deemed to be in breach of his declaration if the actions of somebody else were to be held against him. One

Column Number: 239

could not, for example, brand all members of Sinn Fein if one individual were accused of the sort of actions to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Trimble: The point that was being made was that the enforcement provisions in the legislation to which the Minister refers are defective in that they require private citizens to enforce them. It was pointed out when the legislation was debated that that is an unreasonable burden to put on private citizens and that it is precisely the sort of thing that Government ought to do. On occasion, over the past few years, elected representatives have behaved in a way that would imply—or even be evidence of—support for paramilitary organisations, such as appearing on platforms at rallies organised by such organisations, but no action has been taken because the enforcement provisions in the legislation place no obligation on government to enforce the undertaking. That is the flaw in the Minister's argument. If the declarations were enforced by the Government, the Minister's words would carry some weight, but they are not.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Londonderry make the valid point that the legislation has never been acted on. Is it not fair to say, however, that it is entirely down to a member of the public to take action? A member of the public can draw to the council's attention any breach of the provisions, and it would then be for the council to go to court. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman both said that the provisions were failing, but the measures contained in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne are already contained in statute. As it stands, if a case were ever brought, the eventual decision would be a matter for the court. Therefore, legislation already provides for councillors who act in such a way to be removed from their position on the local council. If that happens, they automatically cease to hold office as a member of a district policing partnership, as the hon. Member for Wycombe said.

4.30 pm

Paragraph 7 of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act sets out a series of grounds on which members of the district policing partnerships, both independent and political, may be removed from office by the board or the council, with the approval of the board. Grounds include being convicted of a criminal offence or being otherwise unable or unfit to discharge their functions as a member of the DPP. Those provisions, taken with the provisions in the electoral legislation, deal, to a large extent, with the points raised by new clause 7.

We understand, and are sympathetic to, the thinking behind the two new clauses. I take on board the points that have been made about the effectiveness of the current provisions, and perhaps we need to consider that further, but we believe that the points raised are adequately dealt with by existing legislation.

Mr. Wilshire: I have listened with care to the Minister. If the Minister agrees with me about new clause 6, she should, just for once, go for a belt-and-braces operation, and let me win the argument. We

Column Number: 240

have heard the arguments about why the legislation on which the Minister would prefer to rely is not as robust as it should be. So if she agrees with my suggestion, and if there is a case that her preferred method is not as robust as it should be, she has made my case for me and should welcome new clause 6 with open arms. I am happy to give way to her if she wants to say that she has changed her mind or will table an alternative new clause. I thought that she would shake her head—it was just a little too much to hope for. I have been grafting away in Committee for some time now and have made no progress at all—such is the nature of opposition. I am at least grateful that, on this occasion, the Minister admits that my suggestion goes in the right direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe will go far. He listens carefully to everything that I say, which will stand him in good stead, because as long as he listens carefully, he will not make the mistake of repeating what I say. He is right. I did not make myself as clear as I should have done. I know what I was trying to say, but I patently failed. The easier problem to sort out is the distinction between ''has links'' and ''had links''. New clause 7 is supposed to refer to having links now and in the future, not to look back to the past. I hope that Hansard will confirm that I said what I thought I said; that I can just about cope with apologists for terrorism from the past. If someone had links with terrorists, rather than was a terrorist, I would be in favour of drawing a line under that.

On reflection, I accept that the wording

''is convicted of a terrorist related offence''

really means is convicted in future. To that extent, my hon. Friend was right. I hope that I made it clear that I should have worded the new clause in such a way as to deal with people who had been convicted in the past, although the wording does not say that.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland believes that he has seized on an inconsistency in my argument. I do not believe that it is raking backwards. It would be raking backwards to suggest that we examine the past conduct of a member of the DPP to see whether we could find something that amounted to a criminal offence. All I am saying is that when someone is convicted of something, that conviction travels with that person from the past to the present and into the future. A convicted terrorist is a convicted terrorist on conviction and in the present. I realise that I am saying that I cannot cope if someone has been convicted of a terrorist offence in the past, I am sorry.

Mr. Carmichael: Recognise my sin but not my repentance.

Mr. Wilshire: If it was not this hour and we were not in Committee, I would be happy to enter into a conversation with an elder of the Church of Scotland on the significance of repentance. The hon. Gentleman may be able to modify my views if he works hard enough for long enough, but I do not think that you want us to become philosophical or theological on these matters, Mr. Amess. I simply wanted to clarify what I meant for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. If people believe me to be wrong, that is their privilege, which I respect.

Column Number: 241

I listened carefully to the Minister. She will not give way on the points on which I am right, and says that there are adequate safeguards in relation to new clause 7. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

Economy in functions of the Board

No. NC8, to move the following Clause:—

'.—In section 3(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (function of the Board to secure efficiency and effectiveness) omit ''and effective'' and insert '', effective and economic with their use of public funds''.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This debate need not take us anything like as long as the debate on new clause 7. Section 3 of the 2000 Act deals with what appears to be an uncontentious issue. It states:

''The Board shall secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland . . . The Board shall secure that—

(a) the police,

(b) the police support staff, and

(c) traffic wardens appointed by the Board under section 71, are efficient and effective.''

Any hon. Members, and certainly any members of the Committee, who have been round the local government course over the years will have had drummed into them the three Es: efficiency, effectiveness and economicness. [Laughter.] I accept that it is not economicness, but Hansard will put it right for me. It is late in the day. Economy is the word that I wanted. I am grateful to the lawyers who can keep me on the straight and narrow. Irrespective of what the words were, there were three of them, and they all began with E. I hope that the Minister will readily accept that we want an efficient and effective police service, not one that is free to waste money. Under the 2000 Act, there is no requirement on the NIPS to be efficient and effective in the cheapest way. It can do things in any way and still comply with the legislation. All I seek to do is to remember the taxpayers of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and to suggest that there should be no tax increase in the forthcoming Budget to hammer on to the British public the cost for everything that the Government want to be done and for the uneconomic way of running the PSNI.

Jane Kennedy: Again, this is one of those occasions when I can say that we do not support the new clause, but not because we disagree with its sentiments. Of course the board should have regard to the need to make economic use of public funds, but another part of the Act already deals with that obligation. Members of the Committee will know from our discussions on other matters in the first sitting that part 5 of the 2000 Act contains provisions that relate to the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It states:

''The Board shall make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions, and those of the Chief Constable, are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.''

Column Number: 242

That is done through the board's performance plan, which is published annually.

Sections 29 to 31 set out the arrangements for auditing and enforcing the duty. I see a distinction between that important procedural duty—it applies to the board but obviously has great implications for the Chief Constable, too—and the obligation on the board in section 3(2). The latter section deals primarily with the board's obligation to ensure that a body of people are in place who can undertake their operational duties efficiently and effectively. In the operational context, the duty to make the best use of public funds is encompassed in the word ''efficient''. There are only two key words in the relevant phrase. The board's concern as part of its general function is to ensure that the police operate efficiently and effectively. Its functions under part 5 of the 2000 Act are additional to, not inconsistent with, the general functions.

It may be worth noting in passing that the equivalent provisions for England and Wales, which are set out in section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996, also refer to a duty to ensure

''the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force''.

Police authorities in England and Wales are already subject to the best value provisions like those in part 5.

The new clause is unnecessary. The board is already required, under section 28 of the 2000 Act, to have regard to the economic use of public funds in both its and the Chief Constable's functions. Its general function under section 3 is consistent with that, but is focused primarily on the operational role of the police.

 

---

Prepared 11 March 2003