 House of Commons |
Session 2004 - 05 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates |
Fourteenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Column Number: 1 Fourteenth Standing Committee on Delegated LegislationThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: †Mr. Edward O’Hara †Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)†Campbell, Mr. Gregory (East Londonderry) (DUP) †Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) †Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab) †Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire (Crosby) (Lab) Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab) Hamilton, David (Midlothian) (Lab) †Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab) †Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP) †Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab) †Lidington, Mr. David (Aylesbury) (Con) †Luff, Mr. Peter (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con) †McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) Mallon, Mr. Seamus (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP) †Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab) †Mole, Mr. Chris (Ipswich) (Lab) †Pearson, Mr. Ian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) Viggers, Mr. Peter (Gosport) (Con) Walter, Mr. Robert (North Dorset) (Con) Wright, Mr. Anthony D. (Great Yarmouth) (Lab) Geoffrey Farrar, Committee Clerk † attended the Committee Column Number: 3 Thursday 10 March 2005[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]Draft District Policing Partnerships (Northern Ireland) Order 20058.55 amThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I beg to move,
Good morning, Mr. O’Hara. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. A draft of the order was laid before the House on 21 February. Since being established in March 2003, district policing partnerships in Northern Ireland have successfully carried out the role envisaged for them in the Patten report by providing local dialogue between the police and the community. In those two years, their political and independent members have built up an experience and knowledge of local policing matters, and they have represented the views of their communities. I pay tribute to all district policing partnerships members for their work. In particular, I acknowledge those members who have continued to serve, despite being subject to intimidation—and, on occasion, attacks to themselves and their property. Their courage is commendable and they deserve everyone’s full support. The order aims to ensure that district policing partnerships continue to function effectively. Its main purpose is to ensure that DPPs in Northern Ireland continue to operate without disruption. Current legislation provides that those bodies cease to function at the date of the next local government election on 5 May 2005. To ensure business as usual for the partnerships, the order proposes temporarily to extend the office of currently elected and independent members until the reconstitution of the new bodies. That will allow their vital function to continue uninterrupted. Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara. I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Will he explain why transitional provisions were omitted by the Government in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000? Mr. Pearson: I am not sure why the difficulties that would be caused by not allowing for a transitional period were not recognised in the 2000 Act. However, it is important that we pass the order to allow continuity in the membership of district policing
In addition to ensuring business as usual, the order proposes making two further amendments deemed to be beneficial to the practical working of the district policing partnerships. At present the position of the chair and vice-chair of the DPP are both open only to elected members. The order provides that the position of vice-chair in the reconstituted DPPs would be open to independent members only. That would integrate independent members further into the role of DPPs and it acknowledges their important contribution to monitoring policing in Northern Ireland. The order also makes an amendment to the current removal-from-office clause. At present, it allows the removal only of members convicted of a criminal offence after the date of appointment. The order proposes extending the clause to include conviction of a criminal offence after appointment, whether the offence was committed before or after the date of appointment. It is intended that the provisions of the order will be brought into force on 1 April 2005, as it will allow them to be in place prior to the local government elections. The proposals have been the subject of consultation with all relevant parties, including those directly affected by the changes—namely, the 26 district policing partnerships. They have been widely welcomed and supported, and I commend the order to the Committee. 9 amMr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): It is a pleasure, Mr. O’Hara, to serve under your chairmanship. I join with the Minister in declaring support for the democratic process and commending all those who have served on district policing partnerships since their inception. Many of them, independent members as well as politically appointed persons, have come under threat and have suffered intimidation. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the forerunners of the DPP—the police liaison committees. Many independent members of those bodies, too, suffered intimidation for years. I served on a police liaison committee for a number of years, and many independent members from the nationalist community served on them, despite intimidation, threat and attack; they are to be highly commended for so doing. Indeed, had the wider nationalist community, including the SDLP, served on police liaison committees, we might today have been discussing the expansion of the model of police liaison committees rather than that of DPPs—but such is the passage of time and political development. The change that I most welcome is in respect of the conviction clause. I am glad that those who are convicted will not be able to serve on DPPs, because the strong concern, fear and worry in the wider community in Northern Ireland is that people with convictions could serve. Given that the DPPs reasonably reflect the local political composition, we
Lady Hermon: May I bring it to the hon. Gentleman’s attention that schedule 3 of the 2000 Act already allows the policing board, or the council with the board’s approval, to remove a political or independent member of the DPP if it is satisfied that that person has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, which was committed after the date of their appointment? It is already on the statute book. Mr. Campbell: That is enlightening and I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Perhaps she will relay that information to those others in her party who, when my party asked for a more politically accurate make-up of the policing board to emerge, indicated that if the policing board itself were to be reconstituted accurately to reflect the political make-up of Northern Ireland, there would be no members of Sinn Fein-IRA on it. The members of the hon. Lady’s party indicated that that would be the case, yet inferred criticism of my party when we indicated it. None the less I thank her for that support. I am sure that it will not be lost on other members of her party. The timing of the legislation will need to be considered in future years. We are obviously getting close to local government elections but, as the Minister said, the order’s provisions will be in place in time. However, we need to ensure that the timing of future legislation allows for adequate consultation and debate. One important issue—it is not a pedantic point—is that DPPs are accurately referred to as policing partnerships. There appears to be a political correctness in Northern Ireland. Every time we talk about the police in Northern Ireland, it seems that political correctness enters into the phraseology of Northern Ireland Office Ministers, the media and others. They have to call it the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We do not now have police stations; we have PSNI stations. We do not have police inspectors; we have PSNI inspectors. That is nonsensical and I hope that we can start to move away from that political correctness. I am glad to see that the district policing partnerships have not embraced such politically correct nonsense. 9.5 amLady Hermon: I am sorry to begin my contribution with a note of disappointment, but the Minister’s introduction to this important piece of legislation was truncated in the extreme. It would have been helpful to the Committee if there had been an examination of the intended composition of district policing partnerships before we agree to the order. As the order stands, today will go down as a red letter day, when the Government successfully drove a coach and horses through a recommendation of the Patten report. Mr. Pearson indicated dissent. Column Number: 6 Lady Hermon: I see the Minister shaking his head. Well, he can clarify that point in his concluding remarks. I shall welcome that. The Patten report when published in 1999 recommended in paragraph 6.26 that
but now named a DPP—
The details of the composition of the DPPs was worked out in schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Schedule 3 to the primary legislation—we are considering an amendment to the 2000 Act—clearly sets out the size and composition of DPPs. If, for example, a DPP consists of 15 members, eight of them should be appointed by the council and seven should be independent members. There was always intended to be a majority of council-elected members and a minority of independent members. [Interruption.] I see the Minister shaking his head. I am delighted with that. We are agreed on that. Today’s order is curious. We must have it clarified by the Minister before we give it the nod. It is an Order in Council and I cannot change a dot or a comma. None of us can. In another place Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton described the order as a “permanent solution” to the transitional problem created by a forthcoming council election and the establishment of a fresh DPP. Article 3(4) of the order states:
a member of a council—
For example, at the next council election, if a councillor of whatever political party, presently sitting on a DPP, fails to get re-elected, my reading of that paragraph of the order suggests that that vacancy cannot be filled. Perhaps the Minister would like to correct me. The difficulty is created because the order before us this afternoon, or this morning—time flies when one is enjoying oneself—must be read in the context of and along with the primary legislation, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Schedule 3(5) states:
If a DPP member who is also a council member was not re-elected, the order would mean that that appointment could not be filled. That council member would then sit as an independent. The result will be that, in a transitional period, the DPPs will have turned back to front both the Patten recommendations and schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The transitional DPPs will have a predominance of independent, rather than political, members. That is a serious issue, which the Minister must address. If he can point to any provision in the order that means that a councillor will remain as a political appointment after the enactment of this legislation, he has better glasses than I do. I cannot see it. Column Number: 7 Mr. Campbell: Does the hon. Lady accept that the issue is compounded by the fact that the policing board today contains members who lost their seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly election of November 2003, some 16 months ago? That is more than twice the length of time that would be envisaged under the interim arrangement for the DPP. There are now members of the policing board who are not elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but who were appointed as Northern Ireland Assembly members. Lady Hermon: I understand the point, but there is a provision in the 2000 Act to cover that scenario. It is that if the suspension were lifted, the Assembly were to sit again, and the d’Honte system were run again, then, and only in those circumstances, the composition of the senior policing board would change. However, as the suspension of the Assembly has not been lifted and it is unlikely to be in the foreseeable future, the composition of the policing board will remain consistent with the legislation. We are considering a completely different scenario, a council election, and I want the Minister to explain which provision of this order will maintain the balance between political members, who should be in the majority in the district policing partnership, and independent members. That will be helpful. The Minister also failed to address the point that the order introduces the reconstitution date. That is a new phenomenon. The reconstitution date is defined as being the date
Then the Board will
Will the Minister confirm how long it has taken the policing board to complete the appointment of independent members of the DPP? It is a complex procedure for each newly elected district council—we have 26 in Northern Ireland—to go through an advertising campaign, to see people who come forward wishing to serve as independent members of the DPP, and to put forward one or two names for each independent appointment to the policing board. It is then for the policing board to endorse those appointments. That can take a long time. As we know, in one area, it took a particularly long time. I therefore found it worrying when I read Baroness Farrington’s indication that
Would the Minister agree that it could take a lot longer than six months and that, during the transitional period, DPPs may well have a majority of independent members rather than political appointees? The term political appointees is correct as they might not be councillors. Moving on to the provision on convictions, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) is right to draw the attention of the Committee to the opposition that his party and mine have to the
Patten never intended that independent members would provide expertise on criminality or criminal offences. It ill behoves this Government, although we should talk in the past tense as they already have the legislation in place and have amended the 2000 Act. So in the context of acts of completion—I think that those are the key words— Mr. Pearson indicated assent. Lady Hermon: The Minister nods—those with a criminal conviction may be eligible to become independent members of DPPs. That provision exists, although it has not come into operation. I think that that is a long way off, given the track record of Sinn Fein and the republican movement in past weeks. I should clarify that the party of the hon. Member for East Londonderry and my party are in total agreement on that issue. The interesting point to put to the Minister about the new provision on criminal convictions and the removal of members of DPPs from office is that we already have a provision in paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act for the removal of a political or independent member of the DPP who
This is an improvement; the order changes and improves the 2000 Act by allowing for the removal of a member who is
Why has the amendment been brought forward now? Has the Northern Ireland Office some awareness or understanding of a person on the DPP who may have committed a criminal offence before his or her appointment and now faces prosecution and possible conviction so that the measure will impinge on them? I see the Minister nodding; it would be helpful if he would say whether that is the reason behind this welcome improvement. I strongly welcome the changes to the process of election of the vice-chairman of the DPP to incorporate independent members. Like the hon. Member for East Londonderry and the Minister, I think that it is right that we put on record our deep appreciation of the service given by all members of DPPs, particularly those who have been intimidated by loyalists or republican paramilitaries to step down. They have kept their nerve and stayed on DPPs and their courage should be commended and warmly praised by the Committee. Before we nod through the order, it is incumbent on the Minister to address the critical issue of the imbalance on the DPP that could well result if the order goes through this morning. Column Number: 9 9.19 amMr. Pearson: I welcome the comments made by the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for North Down and their support for district policing partnerships and their forerunners, the police liaison committees. We all know that some people who serve on DPPs are under threat of intimidation and attacks by dissidents. They are to be commended for the role that they play. I shall address all the principal points made by the hon. Member for North Down, and the issues of convictions and timing, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry raised. I am not aware of anybody who has a problem with the legislation, which has been widely and warmly welcomed by the district policing partnerships, but it is important that the Committee should scrutinise it. I acknowledge the diligence of the hon. Member for North Down in seeking to probe details of the legislation, but I do not believe that it drives a coach and horses through the Patten report, as she claims. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): As the hon. Member for North Down says, it is clear that there is potential for imbalance during the transitional period, which the order defines as the period between election day and the day before the reconstitution date. I have not been as diligent as the hon. Lady in reading the primary legislation, but I presume that if there is a reconstitution day there must be a dissolution day. Will the Minister tell us when that is so that we have some idea of whether the DPPs will function in the transitional period? Mr. Pearson: The point of the legislation is that there will not be a dissolution day because the lives of DPPs will be extended until new ones are put in place. If we do not pass the order today, all DPPs will cease on 5 May 2005, which would not be good for communities in Northern Ireland or for the oversight of policing. Mr. Carmichael: That is a helpful clarification, but we would all be reassured if the Minister told us why the provision about not filling casual vacancies was necessary. Mr. Pearson: I was just going to explain that. I do not accept that we are driving a coach and horses through the Patten report. That is emphatically not the case. On the point about independents being vice-chairs, Patten was explicit in the report that chairs should be elected members. There is no reason why independent members cannot be vice-chairs. Indeed, that prospect has been warmly welcomed. As the hon. Member for North Down knows, DPPs can have 15, 17 or 19 members, and are set up so that there is a majority of councillors: eight councillors in a DPP of 15, nine in one of 17, and 10 in one of 19. That will continue to be the case. Lady Hermon: Before the Minister moves on, will he point to the provision in the order that will guarantee a majority of elected members on a DPP? That is a simple question. Column Number: 10 Mr. Pearson: The hon. Lady asked that in her speech, and I am trying to get around to answering it, if I may. We are essentially allowing a transitional period, during which currently elected members will be able to hold office even if they are not re-elected, or even if they stand down and do not fight the local elections. Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way? Mr. Pearson: I think that what I am saying is quite plain. Under the order, for a transitional period, the current membership of district policing partnerships will continue. The intention is to provide continuity until we can establish the new DPPs. I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point that a member who loses their council seat on 5 May will remain a member of the DPP. That is true. For the sake of clarity, that is exactly what the order says. I have confidence in the advice that I have been given that article 3(4) of the order is consistent with the 2000 Act and allows a political member to hold office in the transitional period even though that member might have lost his or her council seat. Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for endeavouring as hard as he can to explain the order. Paragraph 3(5) of schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states:
It could not be clearer. Does any provision in the order before the Committee this morning repeal that provision? Mr. Pearson: My understanding is that that is what the order does. It allows a political member who has not held his or her council seat to continue as a member of a DPP. That is my understanding of article 3. I do not believe that it is defective. Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister; as I have said, we cannot change a dot or a comma of the order, so it is important that he clarifies all the issues this morning. The Minister is arguing that, for continuity purposes, a member of a council who is a political member of a DPP and who is not re-elected at the next council election remains on the DPP. However, does the Minister agree that that member remains on the DPP as an independent member? If that is so, does the Minister accept that that fact drives a coach and horses through the Patten recommendation? There should always be a majority of political members, but the order cannot guarantee a majority of councillors. Mr. Pearson: I do not agree with the hon. Lady on that point. If someone is a member of a political party for 10, 15 or 20 years and fights an election which they lose, they do not suddenly become an independent. That person is still very much a political individual. I believe that the spirit of Patten is very much still present in the arrangement. The alternative would be that there were no DPPs for six months. That is not what people in Northern Ireland want. Column Number: 11 The hon. Lady talked about the reconstitution date and the length of time that might be needed for the appointment process. She recognised the complexity of the appointment process for independent members. That is something for the Policing Board. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the hon. Lady is asking this question: the order is all very well in practice, but how will it will work in theory? Mr. Pearson: We are trying—my hon. Friend is right—to ensure, practically, the continuation of DPPs until the new ones can be established. At present they would have to cease by 5 May. Everyone to whom I have spoken and all the consultation exercises say that we need that continuity in the role of district policing partnerships. It is important that we respond to that, which is the purpose of the order. The process of appointing the new DPPs is lengthy. There are two reasons why it is not easy to fast-track it. First, in accordance with the legislation, the new council members will nominate independent candidates to the Policing Board for selection, and those candidates will not be selected until after the local government elections in May. Secondly, section 14 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 requires the DPP to be representative of the community. Therefore, independent members cannot be appointed until the elected members are known. We still, however, expect the Policing Board to deal with the process expeditiously. I expect the process to take about six months, so we expect that the new DPPs will be established before the end of this calendar year. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 11 March 2005 |