| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): Lords amendment No. 119, to which the Secretary of State has just referred, inserts two conditions, the first of which is:
- in the case of an independent member, he failed, before his appointment, to make to the Secretary of State full disclosure of a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere;
- he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment.
The Ulster Unionists have always argued that there should be no distinction between political and independent members, and that the rules relating to one should refer equally to the other.
The amendment deals only with an independent member, not with a political member. We can see no reason why the same rule should not apply to both. If a political member has committed a criminal offence which he has not acknowledged, or if he commits a criminal offence after the date of his appointment, he should be treated in exactly the same way as an independent member. That is why we tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 119, which seeks to leave out "an independent" and insert "a". The Lords amendment will then apply to all members of the Policing Board, rather than merely to independent members.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): With regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, obviously it is welcome that the board must now explicitly assess the effectiveness of the district policing partnerships and report back in the annual report. Will the Minister confirm that the assumption therefore is that the board has a strategic
responsibility to work with the DPPs to ensure their effectiveness, and will he outline the most important mechanisms in that relationship?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Policing Board has a strategic responsibility to work with the DPPs, and codes guiding their membership and operation will be issued after consultation in due course. I have in mind a collaborative arrangement between the two, but however much the Policing Board might want to encourage, guide, supervise and engage in a constructive dialogue and relationship with the DPPs, its primary responsibility is to ensure that the DPPs are authentic voices of the local community.
The DPPs' view is the board's overriding responsibility, as is their dedication to effective policing in their districts, and on that basis, it should respect the operational independence of the police locally, and above all, do whatever it can and needs do to enable the police to do their job properly. That, at the end of the day, is what the police service is there to do--to police, not simply to engage in an on-running democratic dialogue with supervisory bodies.
Mr. Öpik: I do not want to labour the point, but I am slightly concerned that the implication of the change, which I welcome, is that the board is now in some way strategically connected to the performance of the DPPs. I still have a slight concern that if there is non-co-operation between the DPPs and the board, the board might have to report poor performance, while not necessarily having the tools to improve that performance. Does the Minister feel that there is something to be discussed there?
Mr. Mandelson: The board will have, if not powers, extremely strong influence. Of course, residual powers lie with the Secretary of State. I shall want to ensure that the district policing partnerships operate in the way envisaged in the Bill and reflect what Parliament intended when it agreed to the provisions.
5.15 pm
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). We expect and assume that any member of the Policing Board, whether independent or political, will carry the same commitment to democratic, peaceful and non-violent practices and behaviour, as well to effective policing, whatever past or baggage that person takes to the board. The past should be the past, and that should apply to every member of the board, whether independent or political.
It is right to distinguish between independent and political members. Political members are appointed because of their democratic mandate. They derive their mandate, authority and membership of the board from direct election by the public, as do Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Good Friday agreement and the Patten report are about inclusiveness and the involvement of democratically elected politicians. I want board members to assume responsibility and to demonstrate their commitment to the work of the board
and to the effectiveness of the police. If the public, with knowledge of their past, have seen fit to elect them, it is not for me to override their appointment.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): Is the Minister making a value judgment? Is he suggesting that an independent board member who has a criminal record that has been concealed or who has committed a crime after his appointment is worse or more unsuitable than somebody who has a political endorsement but carries the same baggage and vulnerabilities?
Mr. Mandelson: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I have some sympathy with his view, but there is a difference. Elected members have been subject to scrutiny by the electorate, from whom they also receive their endorsement and mandate. As I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Bill contains strong removal provisions. For example, paragraph 9(1)(c) of schedule 1 ensures that the Secretary of State can take action if the political member is convicted after appointment or
- is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
Mr. Mandelson: The electorate vote for people in the knowledge of where they come from, what they bring from the past and what baggage they carry. The hon. Gentleman and I have views about baggage and about what might and might not be appropriate to bring to office. He says that people are elected to become members of a legislature or a Government but not to be involved in the oversight of policing, but I do not see a profound difference in principle between being a member of a Government who have all sorts of responsibilities, including those for policing and security, and being a member of a Policing Board.
The Patten commission recommended, the Government have accepted and the Bill makes provision for, a mix of elected members--politicians and representatives of political parties--and independents who do not come from a party political background. Given that the basis of that arrangement is that mix in the composition of the Policing Board, it is not unreasonable for us to respect the will of the voters and the mandate that they give to politicians, rather than to seek to override them. However, if a member, having been appointed to the Policing Board, engaged in criminal activities and was convicted after being prosecuted, or if it emerged that he was not committed to genuinely peaceful and democratic means, that would be a different matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): Recently, a member of Sinn Fein who is a Member of the Legislative
Assembly said that if Sinn Fein did not get its way, it would go back to what it did best--bombing. If that person's name came before the right hon. Gentleman, would it be acceptable? How would that person's treatment compare with that of an independent member, who may have violated the law in the past, but who had not in recent years said that he would return to such practices? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "If they have made the promise." What would happen if such people, having made that promise, said that they would return to those practices? Would they be discriminated against--rightly so, in my opinion? They might be told, "No, you have not given us a proper undertaking."
Mr. Mandelson: I cannot provide contingency arrangements for every piece of rhetoric and hyperbole that every member of a political party--Sinn Fein or otherwise--engages in. Heaven knows, if I severed contact with everyone in Northern Ireland who engaged in such rhetoric and hyperbole, I would be left bonding with very few people. On the other hand, if we put aside the rhetoric and hyperbole and the veiled--or not so veiled--threats, and it emerged that a member of the Policing Board was clearly associating himself with anything other than peaceful and democratic means, I would take a very different view.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the Good Friday agreement is the recognition that if we attempted to reach agreement exclusively with people who have always been committed to a democratic road, we would not be able to address the problem? Against that background, it would be eccentric to exclude from the boards people who have moved away from violence and towards democracy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |