Clause 21 - Special committee of the Board
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Mr David Trimble (Upper Bann, UUP)
I took the opportunity during the debate to refresh my mind on what exactly went on in the other place. What the Minister said about the origin of the clause does not give the whole truth of the matter. In another place, representatives of my party and of the Conservative party expressed considerable concern about the changes to allow disclosure of additional material to the court. We have argued against the changes proposed in the legislation that tilt the disclosure balance more in favour of the board and diminish the ability of the Secretary of State to resist disclosure. Such changes could put the Chief Constable under considerable pressure to disclose highly sensitive material.
Noble Lords in the other place argued the same point, and the Government said that it was partly in response to those concerns that they were introducing this clause. That is not to say that this clause and its contents were introduced at the request of my hon. Friends or by representatives of the Conservative party in another place. A subtle shift is seen in that. There was no consultation on how to deal with those concerns, and my noble Friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass took exception to that when the matter was raised in the other place. There is a subtle distinction
between what the Minister presented and what actually happened.
The Minister acknowledged that the Policing Board was not consulted, nor were persons on the board. Friends on the Policing Board representing my party took grave exception to the proposal, just as they do not agree with the disclosure provisions in the Bill. My friends on the Policing Board are not pressing for those disclosure provisions. I suspect that the same is true of the representatives of the Democratic Unionist party. The disclosure provisions are a result from pressure from another quarter. Consequently, the committee, which results from those pressures, can be traced back to that quarter too.
I do not know the precise genesis of the idea of a committee. I asked the Minister to tell us a bit more about that, but she did not do so. Perhaps she will reflect on that at some point. She has offered an olive branch, and I do not wish to spurn it, so we shall see what can be done to consider the matter more closely. However, I think that the concept of the committee is bad.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for jogging my memory about the provisions in subsection (3), on which the hon. Member for Wycombe, too, dwelt at some length. I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen did that, because the provisions are dangerous. There is provision in legislation for the Policing Board to form committees, and it has formed a large number of committees that are functioning well. However, there is no provision under existing legislation for functions of the Policing Board to be delegated to a committee. The committees that the Policing Board has so far formed are considering matters that will then be brought back to the board as a whole. There is a considerable danger that functions will be vested in a committee, and that the committee will then discharge part or all of the functions of the Policing Board. That is not a good idea.
One of the things that I might welcome were it not for a certain distaste for the source of the idea is the fact that the report was rightly critical of the Police Authority in that respect. As far as I can recall, Patten does not touch on that aspect of the old Police Authority. The old Police Authority tended to operate in a way that the clause would permit. The chairman and a few senior members of the board of the authority did the real work. The membership of the authority generally had little input into what happened, and they were frequently excluded by decisions being taken elsewhere. The provisions in question open the door to exactly replicating some of the vices of the old Police Authority within the Policing Board.
I am glad that other hon. Members have jogged my memory and I urge the Minister, in reflecting on the matter again, to think very hard about proposed new subsection (1A)(b) of the 2000 Act detailed in subsection (3), about which I am fairly certain my friends on the Policing Board would be upset. They would not want a situation to arise whereby functions of the Policing Board were transferred to, and discharged by, a five-man committee, which would be able to exercise those functions without reference to
the board as a whole. That would go some way towards recreating some of the vices of the old Police Authority, which would be a bad thing.
I emphasise that aspect of the provisions, which is not necessary for the function that the Minister advanced as a reason for having the committee. She touched on that only to say that there would be greater flexibility. However, flexibility might be used as an excuse for introducing something that in the long run would entirely change the character of the Policing Board, and that would be bad. The Minister should return to that.
I think that the concept of the committee is wrong in principle because of the creation of two separate classes of member. However, it is also wrong because it has been created simply to handle material that should not be before the board in the first place. If there is a need to ensure the confidentiality of that material, that underlines our concerns about the disclosure provisions and the lack of safeguards elsewhere. Rather than introduce the committee, it would be much better if the Minister were to reconsider the information disclosure provisions generally, and perhaps follow through on the suggestions that she made on how the provision would be modified.
Because the Minister indicated a willingness to think further on the matter and because I have presented the arguments on the provisions of subsection (3) to her for the first time, I do not think that it would be appropriate to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 77, in
clause 21, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) handling information supplied to it by a person conducting an inquiry under section 60 or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry;'.—[Jane Kennedy]
Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.