The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Peter
Atkinson
Barron,
Mr. Kevin
(Rother Valley)
(Lab)
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
Cawsey,
Mr. Ian
(Brigg and Goole)
(Lab)
Creagh,
Mary
(Wakefield)
(Lab)
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann
(Keighley)
(Lab)
Dorrell,
Mr. Stephen
(Charnwood)
(Con)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Goggins,
Paul
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
Johnson,
Ms Diana R.
(Kingston upon Hull, North)
(Lab)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham)
(Lab)
McIsaac,
Shona
(Cleethorpes)
(Lab)
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Seabeck,
Alison
(Plymouth, Devonport)
(Lab)
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield, Hillsborough)
(Lab)
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Winterton,
Ann
(Congleton)
(Con)
Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Thirteenth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 15
March
2007
[Mr.
Peter Atkinson
in the
Chair]
Draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007
1
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul
Goggins):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions)
(Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
It is very good
to see you in the Chair, Mr. Atkinson.
I must begin with a
sincere and profound apology to all members of the Committee, because
this is precisely the same order that we debatedperhaps in this
very Room, but certainly in Committeeon 28 February, except in
one very important respect. If hon. Members look at the order, they
will see at the top of page 15 that paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the
order refers to the insertion into the Police (Northern Ireland) Act
2003 of proposed new part 3A, which relates to staff custody officers.
The order before us today will insert part 3A after part 3 of schedule
2 to the 2003 Act. When we debated the order before, it
referred to inserting part 3A after part 3 of schedule 4,
which would have been an entirely inappropriate place in the 2003 Act
in which to put the
provision.
The error
was spotted by officials after we had held the debate. I was faced with
the choice of incurring the wrath of colleagues by coming back here on
a warm and lovely Thursday afternoon, when the sun is shining, and
requesting that hon. Members once again consider the order and approve
it, or turning a blind eye. Clearly, it was tempting not to bring
colleagues back to Committee, but I could do nothing other than make
the amendment and ensure that the order, properly made out, was
relaid.
I do not intend
to go into any depth on the issues raised by the order. I rehearsed
those before. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of members of the
Committee, who may want to explore any of those issues; but with that
explanation and apology, I commend the order to the
Committee.
1.2
pm
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I know that hon. Members went
through the order before, but unfortunately, I was unable to attend
because of a clash with a sitting of the Select Committee on Northern
Ireland Affairs, when we were finalising the report on tourism in
Northern Ireland, to which I wanted to make a considerable number of
amendments. My absence was noted by the hon. Member for North Down, who
felt that I was being discourteous or did not really care about the
issues, but it was a genuine clash, which was unavoidable as far as I
was concerned.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. We hope that this will be a
brief sitting of the Committee, but with the hon. Member for East
Antrim present, we never know. I acknowledge that there was a clash in
his case, but could he explain why none of his colleagues saw fit to
make themselves available to speak in that
Committee?
Sammy
Wilson:
The hon. Lady will know that names go in for these
Committees in advance, and it was not possible to make changes at that
notice.
I want to ask
the Minister about a number of issues, because the order exemplifies
much of what is wrong, and what is going wrong, with policing in
Northern Ireland. The first issue that I am concerned about is the
introduction of police community support officers. Many people are
concerned about the reductions in the policing budget. Given the
position that I held formerly as chairman of the finance and general
purposes committee of the Policing Board, I am aware that swingeing
cuts to the police budget are proposed in the comprehensive spending
review. That could lead to a reduction of as many as 2,500 officers.
The introduction of police community support officers is seen as a
cheap way to fill that
gap.
On the powers of
the police community support officers, I have no difficulty if those
officers are intended to add to and complement what the police are
doing, provided that they have sufficient powers. One of the important
things for a community support officer is to have the ability to make a
difference if something goes wrong. Under paragraph 4 of schedule 5,
the CSO will have the power to compel someone to wait for half an hour.
I should like the Minister to confirm whether that is the same as
saying that the CSO will have the power to arrest that person if they
refuse to wait? Are they free to walk away?
In this instance, the CSO will
have the power to require someone to wait if they have refused to give
a name and address. If they refuse to do so and the CSO cannot compel
them to wait, the CSO is totally ineffective in their duty and can have
no effect in a situation where people may well expect them to have an
effect. It is not clear whether the CSO will be able to compel them to
wait by arresting and restraining them. Indeed, this may well be a
matter for the police to decide, but there is no indication in the 2003
Act that the CSO will have any means to restrain someone who does not
want to give their name and address or to wait and who wishes to walk
away. I should like the Minister to confirm the
position.
Although we
debated this yesterdayI do not want to go into it, but I want
to put it on the recordthe second thing that concerns me is the
introduction once again of the 50:50 requirement. This is an extension
of the 50:50 requirement, because police community support officers are
really designed to replace part-time reserve officers, for whom there
was no 50:50 requirement. With this replacement of or move away from
part-time reserve officers, the 50:50 requirement has been extended,
despite massive opposition to it in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the
Minister would also explain why the order includes no 50:50 requirement
for the recruitment
of detective constables from other police services across the United
Kingdom. If the 50:50 requirement is part of building confidence in the
police service, as the Minister said last week, and given the possible
influx of new detectivesI think that the police service were
looking for about 200 new detectives to fill the gaps produced by
Pattendoes not he agree that there is a requirement for
confidence in those officers?
If the 50:50 requirement does
not apply, what is the reason? Is it simply that police officers
recruited from police forces in England, Scotland or Wales would resent
being asked what religion they areindeed, they might find it
totally bizarrebefore it was judged whether or not they were
qualified to do the job as a detective in Northern Ireland? If so, does
that not once again illustrate the absolute absurdity of the 50:50
requirement, which has no justification in Northern Ireland other than
to satisfy the political demands of Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic
and Labour
party?
On
the police ombudsmans power to reopen cases, I notice that the
Minister has made it clear that that can happen only when there is
compelling evidence in respect of serious offences. Who will judge
whether there is compelling evidence? There is grave suspicion among
police officers in Northern IrelandI believe that it is totally
justifiedthat the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern
Ireland does not do justly by police officers. In fact, the surveys,
which the ombudsman refused to publish, indicated that the vast
majority of police officersmore than 4,000 respondedhad
no confidence in the ombudsmans office.
The ombudsman sometimes seems to
take cases out of petty vindictiveness, especially if the officer
concerned had been a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. On
occasion, it appears that cases are taken because of popular demand by
people who are anti-police. The real fear among police officers is that
the additional power, which is not given to independent police
complaints bodies in any other part of the United Kingdom, will be
abused, as some of the other powers of the police ombudsmans
office appear to have been used over-rigorously in the past.
Will the police
ombudsmans office make the decision on whether or not there is
compelling evidence? Will standards or criteria be laid down to which
the office must work when deciding whether there is compelling
evidence? Or is it simply the case that, if the police ombudsman
acquits an officer and someone who has a grievance against the police
comes along and tells another story, the ombudsman will have the power
to reopen the case? Many fear that there is a witch hunt against police
officers, and that, on occasion, people in the community have used the
police ombudsmans office to that end.
Lastly, I ask about the
polices power to close roads. I understood that the police
already had that power. In fact, on my way here on Monday, I found that
the bridge across the River Lagan had been closed by police officers
who were attending the scene of an accident. It caused considerable
disruption. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the power in article
12 is required, given that police officers already appear to have that
poweror have they been acting
illegally?
1.13
pm
Lady
Hermon:
I am glad to speak on this interesting but
obnoxious legislation. I specifically wish to record once again my
complete and utter contempt for police recruitment being based on
religion. It is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable in any part
of the United Kingdom. Religious discrimination is being legalised by a
British Governmenta Labour Governmentin order to
recruit police
officers.
As we have
only just introduced community support officers to Northern Ireland, it
is technically impossible to have a historic imbalance within that
community. We are starting with a blank sheet; we should have recruited
them on merit alone, without introducing a 50:50 recruitment procedure.
My views were given at length in our debate of a fortnight
agoon Wednesday 28 Februarya debate to which the
Minister referred.
I
ask the hon. Member for East Antrim to explain why, when there are nine
representatives of the Democratic Unionist party and only one of the
Ulster Unionist party, that not one member of the DUP was available to
attend on that Wednesday to vote against the order. There has been
speculationhow, I have no ideathat one of the reasons
behind the rerunning of the order was to allow a representative of the
DUP to join the debate. I welcome his attendance; it is always nice to
see himwell, mostly nice.
Sammy
Wilson:
You have a wonderful way of showing
it.
Lady
Hermon:
It is delightful to see the smiling face of the
hon. Member for East Antrim this afternoon.
I should like the Minister to
give clarification in response to the speculation about the rerunning
of the Committee. The reason that he gave to the Committee was a
drafting error, but the blame does not really lie with the person who
was responsible for that. I am sure that they felt enormously
embarrassed when the mistake was discovered after the Committee
sitting, but the Committee membershipcertainly, I am sure, if
it had been boosted by a member of the Democratic Unionist
partymight have spotted the error two weeks ago.
It is for Committees of the
House to scrutinise orders, and the blame lies with us. I should not
like the civil servant who was responsible for the mention of schedule
4, instead of schedule 2, to have any sleepless nights over the matter.
However, what has happened shows the need for even better scrutiny, and
it would be enormously helpful if Labour members of the Committee would
pay even greater attention than they are, I am sure, already paying to
the order, and not act as rubber
stamps.
Perhaps the
Minister will answer a couple of additional questions. I tried on an
earlier occasion to get a straight answer from him about 50:50
recruitment. However, he uncharacteristically gave an answer to a
question that I had not asked. It was a very lengthy and, I am sure,
interesting reply, but as it did not answer my question, so I shall put
it again. What pressure was brought by the Irish Government at
St. Andrews for the maintaining and extension of 50:50 recruitment
within the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and what representations
have been made by
the Irish Government with respect to introducing the obnoxious 50:50
recruitment procedure for police community support officers? That was a
direct question, and I should appreciate a direct reply from the
Minister.
Secondly, on
several recent occasions in Committee, when we have been considering
various policing mattersparticularly 50:50
recruitmentthe Minister has called in aid the Patten report. He
will be familiar with the recommendation in that report that we should
have more part-time police officers. There is no mention of police
community support officers in the report; I think that that would have
put Mr. Patten a bit ahead of his time. Why have the
Government cherry-picked the Patten report?
If the explanation for the
introduction of PCSOs is not finance and cost cutting, what is it?
Plastic bobbies is a horrible tag to give PCSOs, but it
has appeared in various newspaper headlines in Englandand I saw
it too in a Belfast Telegraph headline. There is a suspicion
that the police budgetthe hon. Member for East Antrim has
alluded to thisis under pressure and that PCSOs are being
recruited and introduced into Northern Ireland as a cheap option. What
became of part-time police officers, as recommended in the Patten
report?
Finally, I drew
attention to huge criticism of the extension of the police
ombudsmans powers to new and compelling evidence on qualifying
offences, including genocide, crimes against humanity and kidnapping. I
asked the Minister to identify how many police officers had been
acquitted of war crimes, genocide, kidnapping, murder or manslaughter
in Northern Ireland in the past 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years. He could
not do that a fortnight ago, but I assume that, as he knew that we
would have to rerun the Committee this afternoon, he has at his
fingertips the number of such acquittals. It is only when a police
officer has been acquitted of very serious qualifying offences that the
new provisions on new and compelling evidence can come into play. It
would be helpful if the Minister replied to those
points.
1.19
pm
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Atkinson. I observed with interest the hon.
Member for North Down commenting on the DUPs absence when we
last debated the matter. I note that the Conservative party was absent
until a few moments ago. I would have suggested, after last
nights vote, that one might have assumed that Minister was
speaking on behalf of a Conservative-Labour coalition. The hon. Member
for North-East Milton Keynes has now turned up, so I realise that it
was a logistical matter, rather than an intention not to be present.
[
Interruption.
] As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes
points out, it would have been unjust to have said so.
My real criticism is not about
the debate, which predictably enough has been cut and thrust, but the
fact that, as ever, we find ourselves working around an utterly
unacceptable way of governing the Province. Statutory Instrument
Committees do not provide for any amendment, except in so far as we
have debated the
same order twice. This is the third time this week that I have made the
point to the Minister, but it is evidence writ large of the
unacceptability of making decisions in this way.
As the hon.
Member for North Down correctly pointed out, we cannot blame civil
servants for having made a fairly small mistake, despite the fact that
it has had significant consequences. We could blame the Committee, but
primarily I blame it on the fact that we are not considering the
legislation as we would have done if we were acting as a Public Bill
Committee. If we were doing that, we would have gone through the
articles one by one, and I have no doubt that Opposition
memberswhether members of the Conservative party, the Liberal
Democrats, the DUP, the UUP or the Social Democratic and Labour
partywould have spotted the mistake. It is also possible that
the Governments advisers would have spotted the mistake, and we
could then have proceeded in an appropriate fashion. Unfortunately, we
were not able to do that.
We had one and a half hours to
discuss these weighty issues. Necessarily, things were missed. I have
no doubt that there are other mistakes in legislation that has passed
through Statutory Instrument Committees; that is bound to happen due to
the lack of scrutiny. The process puts an unbearable strain of
expectation on the civil servants, who are expected to get it right
first time. It also puts an unreasonable limit on our ability to
scrutinise and to do the job expected of Opposition members: to hold
the Government to account.
Lady
Hermon:
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving way. I invite him to look on the bright side: the process gives
him the opportunity that I am sure he wishes to havethe chance
to vote against the 50:50 recruitment procedures introduced under the
orderand to correct his mistake of a fortnight ago in
supporting the order.
Lembit
Öpik:
I shall conclude with that point.
I do not expect a long response
from the Minister; he knows my opinion of the process and I know his. I
ask him to take on board the fact that it is not reasonable for the
Committee or for civil servants because, at the end of the day, we
cannot be expected to deliver perfect legislation without scrutiny.
Statutory Instrument Committees provide everything except the perfect
opportunity to scrutinise
orders.
I turn to the
comments made by the hon. Member for North Down. I knew that she was
going to ask me the question. However, tempted as I am to alter my vote
from the positive of two weeks ago to the negative on the 50:50
provision, which I find equally pernicious, it would be wrong for me to
do so for the reasons that I outlined yesterday and which I shall
briefly summarise now.
The 50:50 process replaces one
form of discrimination with another. I know that the hon. Lady feels
the same way. Having re-read the text of our debate of two
weeks ago, I confirm that the Minister gave no justification
whatever for introducing that process for this new additional arm of
the police. The hon. Member for East Antrim made exactly the same
point this afternoon. The Minister seems unable to grasp the fact that
it is a classic example of mission creep.
Given that the
50:50 process has been introduced in legislation that relates to one
part of the police, the Minister assumes, by some fuzzy logic, that we
must introduce it for the other part, even though exactly the same
objections apply: first, there is no more intimidation, we are told, by
Sinn Fein or the IRA of people entering the police service; secondly,
there is no prejudice against Catholics in the recruitment system; and
thirdly, there is no fear of applying to the police among the Catholic
community. Those three things being the case, unless the Minister has a
new argument, he is unlikely in any way to persuade the
Committeeor at least Opposition Membersthat the 50:50
requirement is an acceptable part of the
order.
Sammy
Wilson:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is even more
strange that the Minister believes that there would be no difficulty in
Northern Ireland if, for example, the 200 detectives who are required
for the police all came from one communitywhether Catholic,
Protestant or whateverand that no objection would be raised to
that in Northern
Ireland?
Lembit
Öpik:
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is correct,
and I am sure that the Conservatives position is the same as
that of the DUP, the UUP and the Liberal Democrats on 50:50it
is just not right; it is not
acceptable.
The reason
why I would not change my vote, however, is that I think that the
substantive aim of the legislation is correct. Yesterday, as the hon.
Member for North Down knows, I voted against 50:50. There was no
conflict of interest and no priority of interest, because we were
exclusively discussing 50:50. That being my position, I nevertheless
feel that, on balance, it is useful to have additional officers in the
supporting role in the Northern Ireland police. I do not disagree with
the hon. Ladys objections to 50:50, but it would be
inconsistent of me now to say[Interruption.] Let me
finish my point. It would be inconsistent of me now to say that I have
changed my view about community support officers. [Interruption.]
However, I hear some rumblings from Labour Back Benchers. They
might provoke me to change my
mind.
Lady
Hermon:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman allowing me to
intervene again. Will he explain to the Committee why a little bit of
religious discrimination, which is so morally contemptible, is
acceptable to the Liberal
Democrats?
Lembit
Öpik:
It is not acceptable to the Liberal
Democrats, although I shall not repeat what I have just said about my
judgment. The hon. Lady takes a different view on the legislation, and
I respect that; it is a judgment
call.
Let
me conclude on the point about inconsistency. I think that that is the
problem that Labour Members are worried about. Inconsistency is
opposing nuclear weapons and then voting for them. It is not
inconsistent to try to find balance in respect of the order and to try
to do what is right for the Police Service of Northern
Ireland.
1.28
pm
Mr.
Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con): I
apologise to you, Mr. Atkinson, to the Minister and to the
Committee for being late for this sitting. It had little to do with
logistics, but all Members of Parliament sometimes have to make a
decision between family and job, and on this occasion, my family came
first. I am sure that the Committee understands
that.
Of course we have
the advantage that the order was debated two weeks ago. I do not intend
to detain the Committee, but having read through the notes after the
previous Committee, I should like to ask the Minister a couple of
questions that I sense he did not answer last time or at least did not
answer fully.
Given
that so much primary legislation on Northern Ireland has been going
through the House recently, can the Minister explain why the order
could not have been included in either the Northern Ireland
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was enacted last year, or the
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland)
Bill?
I am sure that
this point has been made alreadyit is probably made by all
Opposition Members regularlybut given that PCSOs constitute a
new function, why is the Minister so determined to continue with 50:50
recruitment? There is no historical imbalance to address. Given the
unique nature of Northern Ireland, can the Minister explain how the
training of PCSOs in Northern Ireland will differ from that in mainland
Britain to take the relevant factors into account? Can he also explain
why, under schedule 5, only six of the 17 possible powers are to be
given to
them?
1.29
pm
Paul
Goggins:
I was pleased that the hon. Member for East
Antrim had the opportunity to place his views on the record and to ask
me questions. He is an assiduous attender of Committees, discussions
and debates about policing matters, and he was able to offer his
explanation today about the previous Committee. Whether that was to the
satisfaction of the hon. Member for North Down is a matter for them,
rather than for me.
The
hon. Member for East Antrim asked a number of questions, mainly about
police community support officers. I say again that PCSOs in Northern
Ireland400 of them over the first four yearswill be
appointed in addition to the regular police in Northern Ireland. There
are about 7,500 regular police officers, and we hope to maintain that
figure for the foreseeable future. Of course, we have a comprehensive
spending review, but our purpose is to try to ensure that we retain
those numbers over the next few
years.
We know from studies undertaken
by Her Majestys inspectorate of constabulary that Northern
Ireland might not need 7,500 officers in more normal times, but that is
a question for the longer term and a matter for the Northern Ireland
Policing Board, as well as for the Government. I emphasise that the 400
PCSOs are in addition to the existing number of police
officers.
The hon.
Member for East Antrim asked about powers. Schedule 5 includes a power
to detain. We do not intend it to commence immediately; we
are
awaiting the outcome of work being done by the Home Office on whether it
should be a standard power for all PCSOs in all situations or whether
its use should remain at the discretion of chief constables. Further
work is to be done on that. It is a power to detain, rather than a
power of arrest. Police officers have the power of arrest under the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The power in the order is
different; it is a power to detain. The element of force or restraint
used in detaining an individual must be proportionate to the
circumstances of the offence, and so on. However, if anyone refused to
be detained, that would be an offence with further
consequences.
The most
important thing is that PCSOs should be effective, and their
effectiveness depends on their visibility. The fact that they spent
about 80 per cent. of their time on the street and in the community,
rather than in the police station, is the reason for their
effectiveness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is
reassured.
I turn to
the subject of 50:50 recruitment, which has been mentioned by all hon.
Members. I do not intend to rerun the entire argument, which has taken
place on two occasions recently. We are not introducing a new power to
use 50:50 in relation to PCSOs. We have an existing 50:50 power, which
extends to civilian staff when six or more posts are advertised. PCSOs
are included because they are civilian support staff, and 50:50 applies
as much to them as to any other group of civilians when six or more
posts have to be filled.
I say again that I respect,
understand and acknowledge the strong views held by hon. Members, but
when Patten reported, there was 8 per cent. Catholic representation in
the PSNI. The figure is now 21 per cent. and rising, and we intend to
achieve the 30 per cent. target. Earlier this week, we renewed
the 50:50 powers until March 2010. We hope that it will be the last
time that those powers need to be renewed. We should reach the 30 per
cent. composition in 2010 or shortly afterwards, and we have made a
commitment that, once we get there, those powers will
lapse.
Sammy
Wilson:
Does the Minister accept that we are starting from
a base of noneno PCSOs at all? The 50:50 requirement will more
than exceed the Patten requirement of 30 per cent.. Indeed, the
composition of PCSOs will be different from that of Protestants and
Catholics in the Northern Ireland community. Indeed, Catholicis will be
over-representedwell over-representedin PCSO
recruitment.
Paul
Goggins:
I understand the hon. Gentlemans
argument, but we seek to achieve 30 per cent. Catholic representation
in the civilian work force and also among regular officers. We cannot
take one aspect of the civilian work force and say, We have
achieved 30 per cent. there, so everything is all
right. It is an overall target, and we are determined to get
therenot for its own sake, but because we want a police service
in Northern Ireland that truly reflects the community and has its
confidence.
Lembit
Öpik:
I was not intending to intervene, but the
Minister made a statement that he did not make in
the previous debate. As the hon. Member for East Antrim points out, the
mathematical imperative of what the Government intend necessarily means
that the Catholic community will be over-represented in this new
category of police employee. How can the Minister justify positive
discrimination to a point that will guarantee and lock in a
disproportionately high percentage of Catholics in one section of the
police
force?
Paul
Goggins:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is
trying to ingratiate himself with the hon. Member for North
Downwith his argument if not with his vote. At the moment,
Catholic representation in the civilian work force in the PSNI stands
at around 21 per cent. That is more or less the same level as for
regular officers, although it started at a higher levelabout 12
per cent. rather than 8 per cent.but we want to get it to 30
per cent. as well. We will not exempt any aspect of the civilian work
force. We want to recruit on the 50:50 basis, so that we reach the 30
per cent. target across the civilian work force and with regular
officers if not by 2010, at least very soon thereafter. This week, we
renewed the powers to take us to 2010.
There is an issue with detective
constables, which the hon. Member for East Antrim recognises, given his
experience on the Policing Board. There is a gap. I believe that there
are just under 100 vacancies for detective constables. We need more
experienced officers to perform that task in Northern Ireland. As new
recruits come through and get more experience, that gap will be filled;
but in the short term, we want to give the Chief Constable the power to
recruit from outside Northern Ireland to fill that gap and ensure that
we tackle criminality there. The measure is meant to tackle that
specific, short-term issue
alone.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about extending the law on double jeopardy, which
the hon. Member for North Down and I have discussed many times. Changes
under the 2003 Act made it possible to reopen investigations into
serious offencesshe mentioned the list of offences in the
schedulewhen there is new and compelling evidence. That was not
possible before. Thankfully, as a result of the changes, some people
who thought that they had literally got away with murder are now being
convicted of those murders and are facing the
consequences.
The
hon. Member for East Antrim asked who makes the decision on reopening
investigations: it is the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Chief
Constable believes that there is new and compelling evidence, he can
ask the DPP to reopen the investigation. The measure simply extends
that by allowing the ombudsman to reopen such an investigation when a
police officer might have committed a very grave offence, as that is
not possible under existing legislation.
The hon. Member for North Down
rightly asks how many serving or ex-police officers have committed such
grave offences, but I cannot answer that. It would take considerable
time to trawl back over many years and give her an answer. The point is
that we need legislation that enables the ombudsman to go to the
prosecutor, if that scenario does occur, and say, There is new
and compelling evidence, and I want to reopen the
investigation. The aim is to create a level playing
field.
Mary
Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): The Home Secretary is currently
agreeing with the Rwandan authorities the extradition of four asylum
seekers who were granted indefinite leave to remain in this country,
but were subsequently found to have been involved in the horrendous
genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Given that they have leave to remain and
could apply for work anywhere in the United Kingdom, does my hon.
Friend the Minister agree that this is a necessary and important part
of the
legislation?
Paul
Goggins:
I know something of that case, because one of
those gentlemen is a constituent of mine, but that is another
story.
In the past, if
someone committed a very serious offencemurder, rape, serious
sexual assault or another of the listed crimes, including genocide,
which my hon. Friend has picked up onand then went through the
judicial process, but was not convicted, they walked out of court free
and thought that they had literally got away with murder. Now, if new
DNA or other evidence comes to light, such cases can be reopened and
reinvestigated, and that person can be brought back to face justice
properly. I should have thought that the whole Committeeindeed,
the whole Housewas united in believing that such a measure
should be on the statute book.
I think that
the hon. Member for East Antrim simply wanted to tease out of me why we
are giving such powers to the ombudsman. In doing so, he criticised the
ombudsmans office, but I do not share his criticisms. The
measure is important because it gives the ombudsman the facility to
reopen an investigation into a case that might have involved a police
officer and because it creates a level playing field, so that no gap is
left.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about the road closure powers. Those powers are in part
VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. When that is repealed at the end of
July, those powers will no longer exist, so we are placing them in
legislation here.
I am
grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for putting the blame
entirely where it belongsif not in Ministers hands,
collectively in the hands and on the shoulders of the Committee. In the
end, it is our legislation. I should like to place on the record my
appreciation for the officials who served the Committee today and
others in the Northern Ireland Office, who do a fantastic job, day in,
day out, providing very good advice to Ministers and others. I am very
pleased that the hon. Lady said that, because she has given me the
opportunity to put that on the
record.
The hon. Lady
invited me, yet again, to give a running commentary on what was said at
St. Andrews. I am not going to do that. I just point out to her, again,
the conclusions of those discussions: a commitment to lapse 50:50
provisions when we reach 30 per cent. The Government will abide by that
commitment.
Lady
Hermon:
I am very sorry to intervene on the Minister, but
I did not ask for a running commentary of what was said at St. Andrews;
I asked a simple and direct question: what pressure has been brought to
bear by the Irish Government on the British Government to legalise
religious discrimination consistently in the
provisions on community support officers in Northern Ireland? What
pressure was brought to bear by the Irish
Government?
Paul
Goggins:
There was no pressure from any quarters in
relation to police community support officers. I can confirm that that
was not part of our discussions. The hon. Lady was inviting me to place
on the record what I might have known about the views of the Irish
Government on one or more matters at St. Andrews. I was not
prepared to place that on the record, which is perfectly fair. But no
specific pressure was brought to bear in relation to
PCSOs.
The hon. Lady is
right that PCSOs came after the Patten report was published, but that
does not mean that we should discount them. The world moves on and we
must ensure that we can accommodate what is increasingly recognised as
a very effective and visible aspect of policing. Last Friday afternoon,
in my own constituency, I was with 19 of the newly-recruited
25 PCSOs, and I can assure hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland
constituencies that they are a tremendous addition to the police
services in our communities.
The hon. Lady also asked about
our plans for part-timers. The long-term plan is to recruit about 1,200
part-time officers. Recruitment is continuing, and they are very much
part of the future. Again, the flexibility, commitment and so on that
they bring is highly
valued.
I say to the
hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that I knew that he would place on
record his views. We share at least a common understanding that success
on 26 March will mean much less of this kind of thing, more democracy
and more local accountability in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he
will welcome that a great deal. Perhaps we will not share quite so many
debates, although of course we will continue in the immediate future to
debate policing matters, which will not be devolved, at least until May
2008.
I congratulate
the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes again on his recent
speeches from the Front Bench. He asked why we are discussing these
matters under this order. He will understand that the political
situation in Northern Ireland has been evolving in recent times. We
have had to legislate to reflect that, and some of the legislation was
quite urgent and some less so. The Justice and Security (Northern
Ireland) Bill is focused specifically on the need to ensure that we
have sufficient powers in place when part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000
lapses at the end of July. The order is rather separate.
I accept that it has been a very
busy time and that people have strong views about the Order-in-Council
process, but we have tried to do things in as orderly a way as
possible. I know that officials have worked very hard to ensure that
people are properly briefed and that questions are answered whenever
possible.
Finally
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister give
way?
Paul
Goggins:
The word finally usually attracts
hon. Members attention.
Lady
Hermon:
I have been very patient. I think that I asked the
Minister at the beginning of my contribution to refute the speculation
that the Committee has been rerun to facilitate the attendance of DUP
Members. I should also like him to put on record the fact that very few
police officers have been acquitted of serious crimes, even if he does
not know the exact number. He could at least pay tribute to the police,
because the number will be
few.
Paul
Goggins:
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing my attention
back to an important question. My notes show that I was intending to
address it as a first point, but I got distracted. I am happy to
confirm that the fact that we are meeting again today to consider the
order has nothing to do with any questions, prompting or pressure
brought to bear by any political party that is, or is not, represented
here this afternoon. There was a genuine error, which was brought to my
attention, so I said that we needed to go back to the House to correct
it.
I am also happy to
say againI think that I said this last timethat in
looking back over many years to see whether any police officer had
committed grave offences of which they might have been acquitted and
for which they might be liable to further investigation in the future,
I would be surprised to see many, if any, such offences. We owe a great
debt to those who served as police in the PSNI and, previously, in the
RUC.
Finally, I should
say to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes that we intend to
learn from the GB experience to determine what works
best
for the training of PCSOs. That work is continuing at the moment. We
have designated six powers that would initially be introduced. A range
of other powers, some of which would be standard and some of which
would be used at the discretion of the Chief Constable, might be
introduced to get the right mix in respect of what will be appropriate
in any given
circumstance.
Question
put:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes
3.
Division
No.
1
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern
Ireland) Order
2007.
Committee rose
at twelve minutes to Two
oclock.