| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Mar 2003 : Column 474—continued
Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has detected a slight partiality in my remarks. I do not intend to sustain that impression. I will content myself with the more objective view—that 10 is more appropriate as representing an overall majority. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—the former Secretary of State and largely the architect of the 2000 Act—said that he thought that 10 was possibly too small a number and that he heartily resisted any suggestions of going down to eight. I take the same stance and believe that he was correct.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
- "If one considers police authorities in most parts of the United Kingdom, most people would think it extraordinary that it would take only eight members of a board to bring about the instigation of what could be a very major and expensive inquiry with major
- long-term implications for the police. I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill, and the Government believed that the figure of 10 was very much on the low side. We made it absolutely clear that, if we conceded to an ever-lower figure, that would risk exposing the police to unreasonable political pressure that would reduce the credibility of any such decision by the board. After all, it is a major step to set up an inquiry and, if it can be agreed by eight out of 18 or 19 members, that is bound to reduce the credibility of the decision. If the power was unreasonably or improperly used, it could lead to an unravelling of confidence by the police and the public in the PSNI's governance. I have heard the reassurances offered by Ministers on that point, but I have yet to be fully convinced that this particular change is necessary or desirable." —[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 684–85.]
- "We believe that, while the holding of inquiries is an important power, there is no reason to lay down such weighted voting procedures in legislation and we would recommend that decisions to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority."
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a proposal that the membership of any committee should take a decision through a minority of its members can only be a recipe for dissension within the group as a whole, because those who opposed the minority decision could come back in force and reverse it? We would be creating conflict where we should be creating harmony.
Mr. Taylor: I should probably go and sit in the fourth row back below the Gangway, because I am finding myself absolutely ad idem with the hon. Members who are currently in their places there.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observation that he might move to the fourth row back. This proposal does not deal with a simple minority of the committee but with a majority of those present and voting. The difference is crucial and should be remembered. How is it that the Government felt it necessary to deem the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to have got it wrong on 14 substantive elements of the Bill that was written in 2000? That is why we now find ourselves going through another process of legislation. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?
Mr. Taylor: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any explanation why what was right in 2000 is wrong now. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool moved heaven and earth to get the 2000 Act, in its present form,
on to the statute book, and the Government have produced almost no evidence that it needs amending. Many people who are much more likely to be listened to than me have described it as "Patten enacted". My party did not come to the Patten proposals with any great enthusiasm, but we are prepared to live in the world in which we are, and if the consensus is that Northern Ireland should be policed as faithfully as possible in accordance with the principles of Patten, it seems to me that the 2000 Act is closer to Patten than the measure that is now before us.
Lady Hermon: I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In defence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not here but was a very good Secretary of State, it is a fact that, when the Policing Board was being set up in the autumn of 2000, the Irish Government, the British Government, the American Government and the Catholic Church all said that the 2000 Act and the implementation plan embodied both the letter and the spirit of the Patten report. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to criticise him.
Mr. Taylor: Were it possible to gild the lily, that contribution just did. Once again, I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In the absence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, I would gladly speak highly of his discharge of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was a case of an extremely able man doing his best, and his best was not bad at all.
I have given way from time to time, and I accept that in the spirit of this place, but it is probably time for me to draw my remarks to a conclusion. I shall pick up the threads of what I was saying before I took those interventions, when I was addressing myself to amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. The Government should display some common sense and accept our new clause. Failing that, they should support amendment No. 86, which proposes to omit clause 11 and maintain the status quo, or support amendment No. 44, tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Down, which proposes to leave out subsection (4).
I thank the House for its indulgence this afternoon. I dare say that this is the longest speech that I have ever made in the House of Commons—if it deserves the status of "speech", that is; it was probably more of a stream of consciousness. It is with that same consciousness and good attention that I shall listen with interest in due course to the Minister's reply.
Mr. Mallon: It was very apt of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) to talk about a stream of consciousness. Given the stream of amendments and new clauses that we have grouped together here, there will be a certain stream of consciousness in everyone's contribution. I sought advice from the Chair—prior to your taking the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I wish to support, within this gaggle of amendments and new clauses, those tabled by the Government. I do so for various reasons, to which I shall turn very quickly.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a point about what was said by the Irish Government, the Catholic Church and others. I think that she got her years wrong. Those observations
actually stated that the Weston Park changes had the essence and the spirit of Patten. They were made post-Weston Park—not in relation to the 2000 Act—and very much in regard to the changes made at Weston Park in relation to the 2000 Act.I want to divide my comments into the three areas in which I am especially interested. They are the parts of the Bill relating to reports and inquiries, to the Policing Board seeking information and documents, and to the right—indeed, the duty—of the ombudsman to seek information in relation to the pursuance of her duty. I hope that I shall confine myself to those three areas. It is essential that we recognise that there are two different elements of the Bill: reports and inquiries on one hand, and the board's seeking information on the other. It is on that matter that some of the confusion arises, certainly so far as I have been concerned. The changes relating to reports and inquiries are now being clarified fairly quickly in the Bill.
The important features of the special committee are crucial, and it is worth looking at them again. The first is that it must be representative of the board. I note that previous speakers said that there was a danger in that, but there is always a danger in everything when it comes to getting things done. I said in the Standing Committee, and I say again today, that nothing could be more damaging internally for any board than for a small group of people within it to be privy to special and sensitive information to the exclusion of others. That would create a running, festering sore within the board.
Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) addressed this issue in Committee, he said that one of the problems with the old Police Authority was that it was run by an inner sanctum that had access to information that was not shared by other members of the authority. So, the wider the committee is and the greater the number of members it has, the more effective it will be. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the number from five to seven; I sought that increase for many a long month, and again in Committee.
The crucial difference in this Bill in relation to reports and inquiries is that information would not be withheld on the ground that it would put the life of an individual in danger. That actually applies now to the board's seeking information and documents, the substantive difference being that the Chief Constable will probably be able to deal with the confidentiality of the special committee in a much more effective way than any of the other proposed provisions would enable him to do. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that the purpose of the special committee and of this approach is to ensure that the Chief Constable can increase the provision of information to the Policing Board. I welcome that, because if the board is to deal with the many difficult matters that it will have to deal with, it must have people's trust in respect of such information.
2 pmI am not sure that it was necessary to rename the committee the "special purposes committee", but I can live with that change. The Chief Constable will be obliged to seek the agreement of the special committee to any summary of the sensitive information going to the board. That is crucial, because we cannot have two levels of people on the Policing Board: those who get information and those who do not. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) wish to intervene?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |