| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ingram: I may know the point that the hon. Gentleman is going to raise; I am perhaps reading his mind.
Before we tabled our amendment, PANI was consulted about the intention to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consult it. It agreed and saw the sense in what the Government are seeking to do, so we have PANI's support for the amendment. I ask that hon. Members support the amendments accordingly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Is the Minister giving way?
Mr. Ingram:
No, I have finished.
Mr. Moss:
I was going to intervene on the Minister, but he did not give me the opportunity to do so. I am just delighted that he now seems to be second-guessing what I am going to ask.
Mr. Maginnis:
The proposed change in the people who advise the Secretary of State is one of the most insidious and shameful. With respect, I wish that the Minister was a little less arrogant and a little more tolerant. He may be a Minister in a Government who have a large majority, but I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and I remember when another party behaved with the same arrogance--ultimately, it did not pay. Perhaps the Minister should take that on board.
In all the actions of the Government, past and present, I have seen something that has been engineered by the police division in the Northern Ireland Office, something which reduces the influence and authority of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. One has to go back 25 years to remember why the authority was established in the first place. It was established because there was a perception that the RUC was subject to political control. Everything in the Bill suggests that that is not far from the minds of those on the Government Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) highlighted the new powers being given to the Secretary of State. When one combines the powers given to her in this Bill with those that she will have under the Police (Northern Bill) Bill, to which the Minister alluded in an earlier debate, one can see that she will increasingly have direct, effective control over the Chief Constable and the command of the RUC. The role of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is being sidestepped to such an extent that there will be no protection for society in general in Northern Ireland because of political influence over that civil power.
It is not just the present Government who have been guilty of mistreating the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I do not want to detract from the contribution made by the very competent people from both traditions who have served on the Police Authority down the years, but we have seen some apparently deliberately mischievous appointments to the authority. I am thinking of the appointment of people such as David Cook, for example, who is well known for his pompous, self-seeking role in society in Northern Ireland. He is someone who makes his living by being a member of various quangos.
Mr. Ingram:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maginnis:
Unlike the Minister, I am happy to do so.
Mr. Ingram:
Will the hon. Gentleman give one example of a mischievous appointment made by this Administration?
Mr. Maginnis:
The Minister should listen more carefully. I did not pick out this Administration for its carelessness on the Police Authority. I hope that he will give me credit for that. Some of their policies this Bill and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill are being pursued against sound advice, and will not leave them vindicated when the results begin to show.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
The Government have removed members of my party from all quangos, including the Police Authority, because one of them was an ex-member of the RUC who would not be led by the nose. I have already told the Secretary of State about that. How dare the Minister say that all his appointments are fair?
Mr. Maginnis:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. His suspicions are no greater than mine about how the Government are going about their business.
I was alluding to the appointment by the previous Administration of David Cook, who was appointed against very good advice and turned out to be an unsatisfactory chairman of the Police Authority. He had to be removed by the Secretary of State, along with Chris Ryder, who was also appointed against good advice. We believed that a practising journalist was not a suitable candidate to serve on the Police Authority. There was a conflict of interest in that appointment, because his journalistic interests could not be pursued alongside his Police Authority duties without one impinging on the other.
I shall not fall into the Minister's trap yet by talking about recent appointments, but they will come to light shortly. The Police Authority has been dealt a death blow by the previous Administration and this Administration. We shall find ourselves in a sorry situation when the chickens come home to roost.
The clause removes another substantive role from the Police Authority. The police will not have the cushion between their critics and their political masters that they have had for the past 26 years.
The issue is not particularly important on its own, but it is symptomatic of an attitude that is intended to damage the Police Authority and the police, so that the
Government's proposals for the future of the RUC will appear justified. That is why I want to put that marker down. We are aware of what is intended by those in the police division of the Northern Ireland Office, and of the acquiescence of Ministers to the future dangers that they are creating, which have been pointed out to them.
Mr. Ingram:
Many of the comments have related to forthcoming debates in Committee on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Bill is relevant in the sense that it deals with some of the matters with which it is worth while dealing in these debates. I am sorry that I set the hare running. I just wish that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone had listened to what I said.
The Police Authority was consulted and agreed with what we are seeking to do. The amendment does not strip away any powers. To take that argument forward and say that what the amendment proposes is the most insidious aspect of the whole Bill stretches my imagination. Perhaps the lateness of the hour is causing me difficulty in understanding the logic that is being presented to us.
On attacks on individuals who serve on public bodies and implied attacks on civil servants in the police division who--[Interruption.]
Mr. Ingram:
I have heard the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone make some quite outrageous personal comments about such people. It is quite easy to do so under parliamentary privilege. If he continues to make such attacks, he will hear a robust defence in support of civil servants. Of course, they have no right to respond to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that, and that is why he usually comments under parliamentary privilege.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North):
I do not know what the Minister is referring to when he comments on statements made about civil servants. I make my comments to civil servants to their face. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State. Mr. Steele told absolute lies. He was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that he was a liar. He could not open his mouth--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order--[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member must be seated when I am on my feet. The matters that he is raising are nothing to do with the amendment.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would challenge us on certain things. The Government challenged us. When I got up to answer, I was ruled out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am not responsible for what the Minister has to say.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |