---

26 Mar 2003 : Column 415—continued

Independent Members

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 10, line 12, leave out clause 13.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 49, in page 10, line 17 [Clause 13], after 'practicable', insert

'and so far as is consistent with subparagraph (1B) below'.

No. 50, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert

'in terms of ethnicity, gender, religion and age'.

No. 51, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert—

'(1B) In appointing independent members of a DPP the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters.'.

Mr. Trimble: This series of amendments applies to clause 13, which deals with the appointment of independent members. As drafted, it imposes on the board a duty to ensure that the members of the board, taken together, are representative of the community in the district. It is noteworthy that that is the first statutory provision setting out criteria for the appointment of independent members.

The key amendment of this group is No. 51, which would add the following provision:

"In appointing independent members . . . the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters."

The reason we are tabling that amendment is to write into legislation the terminology used in the Patten report. I had reason to refer to that earlier to point out that Patten was clear about the character of the persons who should be independent members: they should not be just a collection of individuals or people drawn from local community groups; they should be persons who have some expertise in community safety matters, and persons drawn from business or trade unions. Indeed, in the earlier debate, I pointed out that Patten had implied that those should be persons with some credibility, who

26 Mar 2003 : Column 416

would add to the value of the board, and who would therefore balance, as it were, the political members drawn from the council.

It is important that those additional words be added, because community safety partnerships should reflect a broad range of backgrounds, and that is not necessarily the case at the moment. I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier to ask him to trawl through the existing persons who are appointed to district policing partnerships to see how many of them can honestly be said to have any expertise or background in community safety matters. I suspect that it will turn out to be comparatively few.

The amendments also raise the general question of how appointments to district policing partnerships should be made. Thanks to the energy of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), we discovered earlier this evening that, back in August 2002, a code of practice was produced on the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships. I was not previously aware of that code of practice, even though it was produced well over six months ago. I do not know whether any effort was made to circulate it to people or to consult on it, but it appears that it was produced. Consequently, I have had the opportunity to see it.

I should add that that is quite a common occurrence: I heard a rumour earlier today that, a week or two ago, the Northern Ireland Office produced a revised community safety strategy. Where it has been sent I do not know. None of my hon. Friends has heard of it or seen it. We have just heard a rumour about it, and I do not know whether, in fact, it has been produced. The Northern Ireland Office really needs to look at its communications with Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and other Members who have responsibility to speak on Northern Ireland matters in the House.

Lembit Öpik: It is thanks to our researcher, Elizabeth Hanna, that we were made aware of the code of practice and a credit to the Northern Ireland staff that they supplied me with a copy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we could save time and, in some cases, allow Ministers to avoid hassle if such documents were made available to us, because sometimes they answer the questions that we would otherwise raise on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The issue is important. It tends to sour relations with those in other parties who take an interest in Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Office does not communicate with them successfully.

Having discovered the existence of the code of practice, it was interesting to see what it said about the appointment of independent members. Paragraph 3.2 states:

"Appointments must be made on merit"—

that word appears in bold and is underlined—

"strictly in line with the competence based selection criteria outlined in the person specification."

So far, so good. Paragraph 3.2(3) refers to equal opportunities and equality, although I hasten to point out that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 mentions only equal opportunity. We need to be careful because equality can mean something different.

26 Mar 2003 : Column 417

The rest of the paragraph is unexceptional. It mentions proactive measures to secure equality of opportunity and that the Government expect widespread advertisement of appointments as well as letters of invitation and appropriate follow-up to relevant groups. In other words, reasonable steps should to be taken to widen the field of candidates. Those are acceptable measures to encourage a broad spread of applicants. The paragraph ends by stating:

"Ultimately, of course, appointment must be made on merit, strictly in accordance with the requirements outlined in the personal specification."

Again, so far, so good, but how I wish that the Policing Board had followed the code of practice.

I should perhaps mention that it is a matter of public notoriety in Northern Ireland that my wife failed in her attempt to become a member of the Lisburn district policing partnership. Correspondence that she received subsequently from the Policing Board made it clear that merit was not the overriding consideration in the appointments. Apparently, community background, gender and political opinion overruled merit. The Policing Board developed matrices that allowed it to take so many people from one background and so many from another. It then applied the merit score within the context of those results, but it would not be used to override those who fell into that category. So it is clear that merit is disregarded in some circumstances to obtain a community or gender balance.

Thanks to the industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we have also discovered the remarkable imbalance in the political background of those appointed. Independent members went through a two-stage process. The interview at district council level determined whether they were worthy of appointment. The list of appointable people was sent to the Policing Board, together with their scores in the interview, and it made the final decision. My hon. Friend tabled a written question on that. I do not have the exact figures, but to the best of my recollection the answer stated that more than 100 of those who applied for appointments as independent members were identified as coming from a Unionist background. Although 60 were regarded as appointable, only four were appointed. The equivalent figure for the Social Democratic and Labour party showed that, of the 50-odd who applied, 30 got over the bar to appointment and 15 were actually appointed. The percentage of members of the Women's Coalition who were appointed in terms of the proportion of those who applied was even higher. So there was a remarkable variation in terms of political background. It is clear from the written answer that there is something unusual about the appointments.

The key point, however, is that it appears that the Policing Board departed from the merit principle, which the Northern Ireland Office properly underlined in its code of practice. What steps were taken to ensure that the code of practice was adhered to and that merit was regarded as the overriding consideration? It is clear from the material available and the outcome that it was disregarded. The person who was ranked first in the interviews for the Lisburn DPP—not the lady I referred to earlier, in case anybody is putting two and two

26 Mar 2003 : Column 418

together and getting five—was not appointed, so merit was clearly disregarded. It is important that statutory provisions govern appointment, and I am glad that clause 13 allows for that. We have tabled amendments to bring the legislation into line with Patten, and I very much hope that we will be supported by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is keen on the full implementation of Patten. Our amendments would achieve that. Taking the matter on its own merits, it is appropriate that the provisions in Patten are written into the legislation.

However, there are wider considerations. It is sad, given that the Policing Board has got off to a good start, that it has been undermined by both the last group of Government amendments and the curious procedures that it was persuaded to adopt, even though those procedures departed from the Government's own guidelines. That should be rectified before it does even more damage to the Policing Board.

---