Clause 1 - Consultation with Board
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
The amendments tabled only in my name form two sub-groups. One convenient sub-group could be amendments Nos. 5, 1, 3 and 6, which relate to a train of thought that I shall explain in a moment. The other sub-group is amendments Nos. 4 and 7 to clause 1, amendment No. 9 to clause 2 and amendment No. 21 to clause 17. They all raise a virtually identical point, and I imagine that that is why the Clerks, in their wisdom, grouped them together.
The general points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull were correct and I shall not rehearse them again. However, it would be wrong to alter fundamentally the Chief Constable's status. We shall consider that in detail in due course. The way in which consultation with the board is structured is woolly minded. It seems that the Bill is not sure what it wants to say. It either says that there will be a process of asking people what they think and discussing that, although the power would lie with the person who starts the consultation, or that certain people will be required to agree to something. Both courses of action are technically acceptable and a logical way of doing business.
However, it is not sensible that proposed new subsection (2) in clause 1(1) says
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''.
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that one must have the board's agreement, that one must try to get its agreement or that agreement does not matter? It is a most peculiar phrase.
Amendment No. 5 would get the Government out of the mess into which they have got themselves and might appeal to them. They might mean that we shall consult on something. If my amendment were accepted, the provision would read ''shall consult the Board'' on
''the proposed objectives or revision.''
Fine. I would have no quarrel with that; let us talk about it. If that is what the Government mean, that is what the Bill should say.
If the Government mean that the other sensible thing should happen, amendment No. 1 is suitable. I appreciate that it is a total contradiction of amendment No. 5, but I do not mind which amendment the Government choose, as long as they
choose one. Amendment No. 1 would mean that the Secretary of State should consult the board and obtain its agreement. Which is it to be: to consult on, or to obtain agreement? The phrase
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''
raises the question of what would happen if agreement were not reached. We would be at loggerheads, and we might need another Bill or to debate the matter all over again in order to clarify what the Government intend. I never know on such occasions why I try to be so helpful to a Government who I so detest, but I tabled the amendments in the spirit of saying, ''You made a mess of this, and here is a helpful suggestion from a kind Opposition Member to get you out of it.''