The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
†
Campbell,
Mr. Ronnie
(Blyth Valley)
(Lab)
Farrelly,
Paul
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Goggins,
Paul
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
†
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
†
Lazarowicz,
Mark
(Edinburgh, North and Leith)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
McKechin,
Ann
(Glasgow, North)
(Lab)
Mahmood,
Mr. Khalid
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
†
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
†
Shepherd,
Mr. Richard
(Aldridge-Brownhills)
(Con)
†
Southworth,
Helen
(Warrington, South)
(Lab)
Streeter,
Mr. Gary
(South-West Devon)
(Con)
Stuart,
Mr. Graham
(Beverley and Holderness)
(Con)
Turner,
Mr. Andrew
(Isle of Wight)
(Con)
†
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
†
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Glenn
McKee, James Gerrard, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Fifth
Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 24 January
2007
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland)Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul
Goggins):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Policeand Criminal Evidence
(Amendment) (Northern Ireland)Order
2007.
I welcome you to
the Chair, Mr. Williams. Copies of the order were laid
before the House on 4 December 2006. The purpose of the order is
further to amend and update the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern
Ireland) Order 1989, commonly known as PACE, which introduced the now
well established statutory framework for the exercise of police powers
in Northern Ireland. The framework is closely modelled on that which
was first introduced in England and Wales in 1984. Before I come to the
details I shall briefly explain the background to the order and set it
in context.
The last
major review of PACE in Northern Ireland was in 1995. Since then, there
have been several significant amendments to PACE in England and Wales.
Indeed, those changes have accelerated in the last four years or so,
largely due to a joint Home Office-Cabinet Office fundamental review of
PACE in 2002 and a further Home Office review aimed at modernising
police powers in 2004. Many of the proposals in those reviews were
enacted in England and Wales in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act
2005.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): As ever, itis a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Williams. I
am grateful to the Minister for taking an early intervention. We are in
January 2007, but the PACE update took place in England and Wales in
2003 and 2005. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain why Northern
Ireland has languished so far behind the rest of the United
Kingdom?
Paul
Goggins:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her early
intervention and the answer to her question is that it was not for the
want of trying. My righthon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,
Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), the former Northern Ireland security
Minister, announced a review of PACE in Northern Ireland in 2004 and
set the wheels in motion for that review, but the further reviews came
across it, which lengthened the time process. I hope that the hon.
Member for North Down will join me in welcoming this opportunity to
modernise the PACE system for Northern Ireland.
The order addresses the deficit
that may exist and the need to bring things up to date. By making
several amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern
Ireland) Order 1989, we will provide the Police Service of Northern
Ireland with a very similar regime to that available in England and
Wales and enable it to combat crime in the 21st century more
efficiently and effectively.
The substance of the proposal
begins in part II, which deals with police powers to stop and search. I
draw attention to two of a number of changes in that part of the order.
The first relates to fireworks. Most people enjoy fireworks
responsibly, but in the wrong hands they can cause not only great
annoyance and misery, but serious injury and death. A small but
dangerous minority use fireworks to intimidate and to terrorise those
around them. Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland, and in England,
Wales and Scotland, regularly have to deal with those issues.
Police in England and Wales
have the power to stop and search a person or vehicle and to seize
fireworksif they have a reasonable suspicion that possession
is illegal under the terms of existing fireworks legislation. Although
Northern Ireland already has a strict fireworks licensing scheme, that
power should also be provided to police to deal with those who are
intent on deliberately breaching the
law.
The other change
in respect of search powers—article 4—will require a
police constable to provide his or her name in addition to their police
number and station prior to commencing a search of a person
ora vehicle. The same requirement will apply to the completion
of a record of search. That is a routine requirement in England and
Wales under PACE, but for Northern Ireland it is an important step as
the police service moves towards greater transparency in its contact
with the public. It is our intention that, through codes of practice to
be issued after legislation is passed, officers will not be obliged to
supply their names in the case of inquiries linked to the investigation
of terrorism, or if they reasonably believe that by doing so they may
be endangered. That is already the case in England and Wales.
Part III of the order deals
with police powers of entry, search and seizure. Today, of course,
criminal evidence and the proceeds of crime can be moved quickly
between locations in an effort to thwart police investigations. It is
therefore important that wereduce the current bureaucracy
associated with search warrants, to reflect changes in working
procedures and patterns of criminal activity.
At present, a constable is
required to apply in person for a warrant, which can be used to search
a single premises on one occasion only and within one month of the date
of issue. Applying repeatedly for warrants for different premises owned
by the same person can cause delays and impede investigations. By
broadening the scope of search warrants and the way in which they are
applied for and executed, the effectiveness and efficiency of the
existing warrant structure will, in my view, be substantially
improved.
The order
does two things. It will allow for a warrant to be issued covering one
or more specified premises. It will also introduce a new warrant,
authorising the search of any premises occupied or controlled by an
individual, whether or not all addresses are known to
the police at the time of the application. In addition, warrants may
authorise access on more than occasion, and they will be valid for
three months rather than one.
In widening the range
and scope of search warrants, I am fully aware of the need to ensure
stringent safeguards and protection for those whose premises are being
searched. Under the new arrangements, there will be a greater
requirement on police officers to satisfy a lay magistrate by providing
specific information and justification when making application for a
warrant. No premises may be entered or searched more than once without
the written authority of an officer of at least inspector
rank.
I turn to some
important changes in arrest, as set out in part IV. The right to
liberty is a key principle of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the power
of arrest represents an obvious interference with that right. However,
arrest is a crucial weapon in the police armoury for tackling crime.
PACE has done muchto regulate the power of arrest by
establishing a systematic structure based on the principles of
seriousness and necessity. As well as the statutory power of arrest for
arrestable and serious arrestable offences, a police officer in
Northern Ireland has a general power of arrest, if considered
necessary, for all offences. The criteria justifying such an arrest are
set out in article 27 of the PACE order as it currently
stands.
However, much
has changed in crime and criminality and in the nature of offending in
the 18 years since PACE was enacted, and the current arrangements are
far from straightforward. Indeed, they were described by the
Association of Chief Police Officers at the time of the Home Office
review of PACE as a “myriad” of complex laws. There is
undoubtedly a need for greater clarity.
In line with the changes made
in England and Wales, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act
2005, article 15 of the order will abolish the category of arrestable
and serious arrestable offences, replacing them with a power of arrest
for all offences, but crucially one based on the concept of necessity.
Seriousness will remain a key consideration when a constable decides to
make an arrest, but it will be one of a number of necessary factors to
be taken into account. It is the necessity for arrest that the officer
must consider in order to decide whether or not to effect an arrest.
Necessity requires the officer to set out the reasons why a person is
being arrested and not dealt with by other means. It may help the
Committee to refer to proposed new article 26(5), which sets out the
grounds on which it may become necessary to make an arrest.
In addition, a new accompanying
PACE code of practice, dealing solely with arrest, will shortly be laid
before the House. Based on a similar code introduced in England and
Wales, the new code will regulate the exercise of the new arrest
provisions.
Lady
Hermon:
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving
way. Will he confirm whether the new powers of arrest, the grounds for
which he has just mentioned, are identical to those in Great Britain?
If they are, which I understand that they are, how could there be any
differences between the codes of practice applicable in Northern
Ireland and in England and Wales?
Paul
Goggins:
I can confirm that they are the same. I would not
anticipate a major difference in the codes of practice. However, we
would need a code of practice to put into operation the new legislation
that is providing for Northern Ireland. Does that satisfy the hon.
Lady?
Lady
Hermon:
Momentarily.
Paul
Goggins:
The new arrest powers that we have been
discussing have been in operation for over a year in England and Wales,
where they have bedded in well. I am confident that they will have a
similarly beneficial effect in Northern
Ireland.
Part V of the
draft order makes a series of changes to the detention provisions,
aimed at reducing bureaucracy and making current procedures and
processes more efficient and effective. In particular, new provisions
will be introduced to allow police to review a person’s
detention by telephone or video-conferencing facilities. I have also
decided to remove the unnecessary and cumbersome provision that
requires a person released on police bail to attend back at a police
station no later than 28 days after being released. The police will
still be able to require attendance in individual cases, where judged
necessary, but the requirement will not be
automatic.
The
importance of identification data in the investigation of crime should
not be underestimated. As forensic science and technology advance at an
unprecedented rate, it is vital that the police are provided with the
necessary tools as they investigate crime and seek to bring criminals
to account for their
deeds.
Part VI, which
deals with the questioning and treatment of persons by the police, has
been amended on a number of occasions in recent times, in line with
England and Wales. The draft order makes a number of further changes,
again in line with England and Wales. For example, police will be able
to take footwear impressions, to photograph persons elsewhere than a
police station and to take fingerprints without consent in order to
confirm a person’s
identity.
As
part of the drive towards greater operational efficiency and the
reduction of bureaucracy, authorisation levels have been reduced from
superintendent to inspector in a range of duties, which include
carrying out an intimate search, the taking of intimate and
non-intimate samples, delaying a suspect’s right to have someone
informed of their arrest and delaying access to legal
advice.
I would like
to draw attention to a new power, which will allow police to carry out
a speculative search of fingerprint and DNA databases from samples
taken from deceased persons, or a body part. That will be particularly
valuable in the identification of victims of natural disasters such as
the tsunamis in Asia and the hurricane in New
Orleans.
I was
grateful to all who responded to the consultation on the draft order.
After full consideration of all the points raised, I have decided to
make a small number of changes to the published draft, to reflect
concerns expressed by some respondents. The main change relates to how
17-year-olds should be dealt with under PACE. People in that age group
have been treated as adults since the inception of PACE.
However, various international conventions define children as anyone
under the age of 18. Just over a year ago, the criminal justice system
in Northern Ireland was changed to reflect that and 17-year-olds are
now dealt with in the youth court. No corresponding change was made to
PACE. Although England and Wales continue to regard 17-year-olds as
adults under PACE, that is currently under consideration by the Home
Office. I have therefore decided to amend the definition of a child to
include those aged 17. However, that important change presents the
police and criminal justice agencies with a number of operational
difficulties, so it will not be possible to commence the provisions
until they have been fully considered and addressed. I have asked my
officials to take that forward with some
urgency.
In
conclusion, I believe that the amendments contained in the order will
greatly enhance the police and criminal evidence regime in Northern
Ireland. In conjunction with radically revised, updated and expanded
codes of practice, they will give police in Northern Ireland broadly
the same range of powers already available to their colleagues in
England and Wales. They will be provided with a more modern, effective
and efficient range of provisions in the fight against crime. In
keeping with the spirit of PACE, they strike a fair and proportionate
balance between police powers and the rights of the individual. I
commend the draft order to the
Committee.
2.45
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I join the Minister
in welcoming you to the Committee, Mr. Williams. I do not
intend to detain the Committee for long as the Opposition approve of
the order, but I have a couple of questions, which the Minister has
already touched on.
I
echo the words of the hon. Member for North Down about how it seems odd
that the first changes to PACE were in 2003, but that four years on we
are only just including the changes for Northern Ireland, even though
there were further changes in 2005. The Minister’s reference to
other changes to PACE being considered by the Government also concerns
me. Having waited so long, would it be better to wait a little while
longer until the next review of PACE is carried out? That is a slight
question. My other question was why the definition of a child in
Northern Ireland is being raised to 18 when it is still 17 in England
and Wales, but the Minister has touched upon that and it is being
reviewed. Perhaps the Minister could take up those two points when he
replies, but beyond that I have no further
questions.
2.46
pm
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I was a little late
for the Committee, for which I apologise, due to conflicting
parliamentary business, so I feel guilty about being called before the
hon. Member for North
Down.
The Liberal
Democrats understand that the order brings the Northern Ireland PACE
code into line with changes already made for England and Wales.
However, we had concerns when those provisions were debated during the
course of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as well as during the Criminal
Justice and Police Act 2001, the Police Reform Act 2002 and, in
particular, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The last
Act was pushed through Parliament in the days before dissolution for
the May 2005 general election and, in our judgment, did not receive
adequate scrutiny. The Minister will, I am sure, not be surprised that
we continue to harbour similar concerns about the order before us
today.
Our first
concern relates to the arrest provisions contained in article 16. We do
not object in principle to the simplification of the criteria for
arrest—on the face of it, that looks sensible—but we are
nevertheless concerned that the article grants too much
discretionto individual officers. The change in article 16
mightalso lead to large numbers of unnecessary arrests.
Preventive detention other than for the purpose of initiating a
criminal prosecution is not permitted by article 5 of the European
convention on human rights. The police and others have powers to use
reasonable force in the prevention of crime. Would the Minister have
some comment on that concern in his
summation?
We are also
concerned about a general power of arrest, related to the same sort of
worries. The conditions are drafted very broadly. It would be easy for
an officer to justify an arrest under one or both of the provisions
here. Since officers often have to make rapid decisions about whether
to arrest, I put it to the Minister that it would be natural,
particularly for the relatively inexperienced, to err on the side of
caution and to make the arrest. This would lead to the further
overcrowding of custody suites and an increased use of police time and
resources in dealing with people arrested for relatively minor
offences. I do not see any provision to ensure against that
eventuality. Again, I ask the Minister for
comment.
We are also
concerned that there is considerable scope for abuse of the subsections
and that they may be applied arbitrarily—or, rather, in a
discriminatory fashion—against certain sectors of the community,
such as against ethnic minorities. Once again, article 5 of the
convention does not permit arbitrary procedures for arrest.
Today’s proposals do permit arbitrary procedures for arrest or,
certainly, procedures that could be applied arbitrarily. Can the
Minister assure us that the provisions will at least be monitored and
reviewed by Government? The Minister might respond by saying that my
concerns will not come to pass, in which case he should at least be
willing to accept that we should monitor the issues to which they
relate. If my concerns proved to be unfounded, that would be great.
However, I want the Government to monitor those issues if they do not
withdraw the instrument
today.
We are also
concerned that giving officers the power to arrest for a minor offence
could lead to a higher number of arrests of children and young people.
It would be useful to have a system to analyse the provision’s
effect on young people. That should be part of the monitoring process
that I am asking the Minister to agree
to.
To respond to what
the Minister just said, we welcome article 18, which amends the
definition of a juvenile under PACE from a person under the age of 17
to a person under the age of 18. The Minister has already provided the
rationale. He is right to say that that will rectify a disparity
between the extension of the youth justice system to those aged 17
under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and their continued
treatment as adults under PACE. That was in contravention of both
domestic law, under the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland)
Order 1998 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and
international standards such as the United Nations convention on the
rights of the child and the United Nations standard minimum rules for
the administration of juvenile justice—called the Beijing rules,
if I remember correctly. All define “children” as
including anyone up to age 18. Before, the laws on Northern Ireland
contravened an awful lot of established national and international
precedent. I am pleased that the Government have now afforded the same
safeguards and protections to 17-year-olds as to other juveniles, and I
give them credit for righting that
wrong.
Finally, we are
also concerned at the provisions of articles 32 and 33, which lower the
authorisation levels for the taking of intimate and non-intimate
samples without consent from a superintendent or inspector. Will the
Minister reassure the House that inspectors will be given appropriate
training in that respect? Hopefully, putting it on the record will be
an indication of what is expected in respect of the implementation of
the
regulations.
Articles
31 and 36 relate to the photographing of suspects and the taking of
their footprints. That might be problematic, although the Minister sold
it as a benefit. Under current PACE codes, additional safeguards should
be in place when young or vulnerable people are required to undergo any
intrusive acts at the request of a constable. Usually the requirement
is that if a young or vulnerable person is taken to a police station
for those activities to be undertaken, an appropriate adult should be
with them. Those protections appear to go out of the window under the
new provisions. Is it intended that the old provisions will apply and,
if so, where is that assurance given and built into the
legislation.
Our
concerns relate not specifically to what the Government are trying to
do today, but to a series of concerns that the Liberal Democrats have
raised on related and similar legislation in the past. Those concerns
do not seem to have been addressed in the current legislation. I look
forward to what the Minister has to say to reassure us that they
have.
2.53
pm
Lady
Hermon:
This is an interesting piece of legislation.
Changes to the police and criminal evidence procedures in Northern
Ireland are largely to be welcomed. I am personally very disappointed
that a political party from Northern Ireland whose leader is
keen—in fact, very enthusiastic—to condemn and to use
parliamentary privilege to name retired police officers during Prime
Minister’s questions is not represented in this Committee to
discuss and debate an increase in police powers in Northern Ireland.
That seems somewhat inconsistent of the Social Democratic and Labour
party.
Moving on to the order, I am not
as content tobe persuaded by the Minister as other Committee
members seem to have been—apart, of course, from the hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire; the hon. Member for Tewkesbury also raised two
points. Of course, I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim will
be enthusiastic to speak after the hon. Member for North
Down.
I start by
drawing the Committee’s attention to the very brief explanation
of the order in the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 3 states that the
changes
“largely mirror
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984.”
Paragraph 4 refers
in the same way to changes brought about by the Criminal Justice Act
2003 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Paragraph 5
explains that the order merely brings the codes of practice and
prevailing PACE legislation “more into line
with”—it does not make it identical—that on
policing in England in Wales.
As I hinted in an intervention
on the Minister, I am extremely displeased that the police in Northern
Ireland have only now acquired the additional powers, which are not to
counter terrorism, but to deal with matters such as fireworks, which
cause mayhem. There is an enormous amount of antisocial behaviour
involving fireworks not only in autumn and Halloween, but throughout
the year. Will the Minister revisit his notes, take advice from his
officials and explain why Northern Ireland has languished so far
behind? Why is it being brought into line only at this late stage, at
the end of January
2007?
The Minister has
given persuasive reasons why Northern Ireland should be brought largely
into line with Great Britain—or with England and Wales, rather
than Scotland—but will he reflect on the Government policy of
devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland? He is a good
Northern Ireland Minister and has given valid and cogent reasons for
bringing Northern Ireland into line in PACE legislation, but does he
share my concern that with the devolution of policing and justice,
Northern Ireland might again fall out of kilter with England and Wales
and drag well behind—and not just by three or four
years—if we do not have competent and serious-minded Ministers
in charge of justice and policing? If those matters are to be devolved,
when there is community
confidence—
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Lady
Hermon:
Of course. I am pleased to do
so.
Sammy
Wilson:
Given the legislation that has passed through the
House that will require the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to
agree to the devolution of policing and justice powers, as well as the
parallel consent of the Assembly and, as is being discussed at present,
of the person who would take over as the Minister responsible for
policing and justice, does the hon. Lady accept that all the mechanisms
are in place to ensure that devolution will take place only when we can
be sure that there will be confidence in the Minister who will be
responsible?
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful for that extensive
intervention. Perhaps if I followed that lead, Mr. Williams,
I would be ruled out of order, although having caught your eye, I can
say at least that I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the
hon.
Gentleman.
Paragraph 6
of the explanatory memorandum—I always read such documents from
cover to cover, and I pay tribute to those who draft memorandums about
the various unamendable Orders in Council for Northern Ireland that go
this dreadful procedure at breakneck speed—is very interesting.
It states:
“As
part of the development of each policy
area”—
I stress
the term “policy
area”—
“the
Northern Ireland Office held extensive discussions with the Police
Service of Northern
Ireland”—
rightly
so—
“and consulted
with the Northern Ireland Policing
Board”,
which I can
understand as well. It goes on to mention the police ombudsman,
however, as a named consultee, along with “other main
stakeholders”. Will the Minister please explain to the Committee
why the police ombudsman is a named consultee in this exercise? The
powers of the police ombudsman are set out in section 51 of the Police
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which states that the police
ombudsman
“shall exercise
his powers under this Part in such manner and to such extent as appears
to him to be best calculated to
secure—
(a) the
efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints
system; and
(b) the
confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that
system”—
that is,
the complaints
system.
The PACE
proposal before us this afternoon deals with the increase of police
powers and a policy decision—I repeat, a policy
decision—about increasing police powers in Northern Ireland to
bring them, albeit belatedly, into line with those in England and
Wales, but it has not a word to say about police complaints. I repeat,
why is the police ombudsman named as a consultee? That is not a
criticism of the police ombudsman; I raise the issue because, like me
and other members of the Committee, the Minister, who has been in the
Northern Ireland Office for a considerable time, is well aware that we
have in Northern Ireland a chief inspector of criminal justice, Kit
Chivers. I would have expected the holder of that office to be named as
a consultee. Was the chief inspector of criminal justice consulted? Was
Lord Clyde, the justice oversight commissioner, who considers all
issues of justice in Northern Ireland, consulted? [Interruption.]
I am being prompted in a very helpful manner by the hon. Member for
Aldridge-Brownhills, from a sedentary position. Was the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission a consultee? However, the one point I
would like the Minister to address is why the police ombudsman was
named as one of the specific
consultees.
I would
like the Minister to address some specific issues in the order. Article
6 relates to road checks. It is difficult to read such an amendment
order, however, if we do not have all the other updated legislation, in
this case the original PACE provisions in Northern Ireland. It is
therefore difficult to understand the full impact of article 6, which
simply says:
“Article 6 of PACE (road
checks) is amended as follows...for “a serious arrestable
offence” (wherever it occurs) substitute “an indictable
offence”.
Can
the Minister explain what legislation gives a police officer on duty
the power, for example, to stop and question a driver who, for no
apparent reason, may be driving erratically or using a hand-held mobile
phone? Will the Minister please say what other powers in other
legislation a police officer will have?
I ask that question with
specific reference to my constituency. It was brought to the attention
of the PSNI, too late, that a number of serving soldiers in Northern
Ireland based in Palace Barracks, Holywood, in my constituency had been
driving on the roads in Northern Ireland without insurance. One in
particular, who is now ex-Private Gordon Godley, was dismissed from the
Army after being prosecuted for having driven a car while disqualified
from driving, obviously without insurance or a valid driving licence.
Under what powers in what legislation would the PSNI be able to check
whether a person is disqualified from driving or to stop someone who is
using a mobile phone? I would like clarification of article
6.
Article 7 relates
to the powers of entry, search and seizure, which the Minister
explained to us were absolutely necessary. I welcome these powers, as
the police do not now have to apply for every single search warrant for
every single individual premises; the warrant can be for any premises
and it can last for a period. Will the Minister explain the following
point, however? If there is an obligation on the PSNI officer or
constable who is making an application for a search of multiple
premises to make sure that there is an impact assessment on, for
example, vulnerable people living at that address, be they children,
elderly or disabled people or Alzheimer’s sufferers? For obvious
reasons, I have a particular interest in the last category, since my
husband suffers from
Alzheimer’s.
I
would like the Minister to confirm that a magistrate, in fact the lay
magistrate—I love that title, which applies now that we no
longer have the resident ones—can legitimately ask in Northern
Ireland, before granting permission for a search warrant or warrants of
any premises, that an impact assessment has been made for vulnerable
people in the categories I have already mentioned? Those whom I have
mentioned are but one example of the vulnerable people who may reside
at a particular address. Can the lay magistrate ask for clarification
or confirmation on that point before issuing the
warrant?
Sammy
Wilson:
I shall try to keep this intervention brief,
Mr. Williams. On the impact assessment, given that the
search warrants will be for multiple premises and for premises where
the exact circumstances of the person against whom the warrant has been
awarded may not even be known, how in practical terms would such an
impact assessment be carried
out?
Lady
Hermon:
What a helpful intervention from the hon. Member
for East Antrim. It is of course not for the hon. Member for North Down
to answer the question. It is for that Member to pose the questions to
the Minister for clarification. I can, however, say to the hon.
Gentleman that I am always very conscious of the arguments that have
been put by the Minister that we are in today’s order bringing
Northern Ireland, albeit
belatedly, into line with the PACE provisions and requirements that
obtain in England and Wales. I am aware that magistrates, certainly in
England, have asked for an impact assessment for particular premises
before granting a search warrant. With that knowledge, I simply want
clarification from the Minister about the questions I posed, but it is
not the role of the hon. Member for North Down to answer for the
Government. I could not possibly do the impossible and answer for the
Government.
We have
moved to article 10 of the order, which again is a very interesting
provision on which I need clarification from the Minister. It deals
with the execution of warrants. We are talking here about the extension
of PACE not just to constables in Northern Ireland, but as members of
the Committee will see, to “a person so authorised”. In
respect of the execution of a warrant, the order
states:
“A
person so authorised has the same powers as the constable whom he
accompanies in respect of ... the execution of a warrant ...
and the seizure of anything to which the warrant
relates.”
Will the
Minister kindly confirm who exactly is embraced by the phrase
“the person so authorised”? Who exactly has the same
powers as the constable—we are talking about a significant
increase in police powers in Northern Ireland—and who are the
other persons so authorised who fall within that category? Are they
community support officers? If so, are they only community support
officers, or will other categories also have identical powers to those
of police officers? Can the Minister confirm to the Committee who comes
within that very broad term and is not identified in the order? I am
not prepared to nod the order through without clarification from
him.
We
come to the police ombudsman’s very relevant and proper powers
to investigate complaints against the police in Northern Ireland. It is
an independent complaints procedure that I support wholly, but can the
Minister confirm whether complaints against a person so authorised who
executes a warrant and seizes something to which it relates but gets it
wrong and causes offence, annoyance or hurt will lie with the police
ombudsman? If so, in which provision? I have read the order from cover
to cover but have not identified which provision extends those powers.
That would be helpful
indeed.
Part IV of the
order deals with powers of arrest. Again, the Minister was very
courteous and precise in explaining the important changes to the power
of arrest, confirming on an intervention that the test would be
circumstances of seriousness and necessity, which I agree simplifies
things considerably. Police officers need to know where they are and
what they can do, because they are the ones who have to apply the law
at the end of the day. We can sit in Committee this afternoon, but I
would like those at the coal-face to understand their powers before
they exercise
them.
The Minister has
confirmed that the powers are identical to those in England and Wales.
He is correct, but I suggest that the powers are wrong in England and
Wales as they are about to be wrong in Northern Ireland. I draw his
attention and the Committee’s to new article 26(3), which will
remove arrest without warrant for an indictable offence and substitute
arrest without warrant. The power will be given to constables
so they may arrest without a warrant various
categories of individual—a person who is about to commit an
offence, for instance. In the most peculiar phraseology that I have
seen in legislation, a phraseology that I think is wholly incorrect,
paragraph (3) reads:
“If
an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a
warrant—
(a)
anyone who is guilty of the
offence;
(b) anyone
whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of
it.”
I can
accept (b), but I cannot possibly accept (a). I thought that it was the
power of a constable to arrest when he suspects or has reasonable
grounds to suspect that someone is guilty of an offence, but surely it
is for the courts, not a police constable, to decide whether a person
is guilty of an offence.
Paul
Goggins:
I am doing my best to keep up with the hon.
Lady’s pace, if she will forgive the pun—it was not
intended, but I just realised that I made it. She will correct me if I
am wrong, because I am genuinely trying to keep up. She referred to
article 15 and to powers to arrest without warrant. Was she referring
to powers of other
persons?
Lady
Hermon:
To constables. I am sorry if I confused the
Minister. The issue that I wished to bring to the Committee’s
attention is that new article 26(3)
says:
“If an offence has
been committed, a
constable”—
not
other
persons—
“may
arrest without a
warrant—
(a)
anyone who is guilty of the
offence”.
Guilt can be
decided only by the courts; it cannot be decided by a constable. That
is my point. It is simply a mistake. It is an error. It is wrong. No
constable in any part of the United Kingdom may arrest, without a
warrant, anyone who is guilty of an offence. A person may be suspected,
the constable may have reasonable grounds and there may be a necessity
to arrest that person, but guilt is determined by the courts, not by a
constable.
The same
mistake has been replicated, and the same problem has arisen, that
appeared in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which did
not apply to Northern Ireland immediately and was only brought into
Northern Ireland two years later in January 2007. What has happened
with the draftsmen? I am sorry to be critical of the draftsmen and
draftswoman again, but they have cut section 110 on powers of arrest
from the 2005 Act and pasted it into this order for Northern Ireland.
If the Minister, in a moment of reflection after this sitting, cares to
look at section 110(3), he will see the identical
wording:
“If an
offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a
warrant...anyone who is guilty of the
offence”.
I am sorry, but
that was wrong in 2005 and it is wrong in 2007. I stand to be corrected
if I have got the balance on the independence of the judiciary wrong,
but the present drafting is completely wrong and will have to be
corrected. I would like the Minister to confirm that that will be
changed, that Northern Ireland will be correct and that the 2005 Act
will be amended at alater
date.
Moving swiftly
on—
Mr.
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab):
Swiftly?
Lady
Hermon:
I am sorry that some hon. Members find it amusing
that I have not been swift, but we are dealing with an Order in Council
that applies to1.7 million people in Northern Ireland, so it
is incumbent on all Committee members to get it right. I represent a
constituency in Northern Ireland and, in doing the honourable, right
thing for those people, I want to get it right. That is why I am
standing here. I do not do it for amusement, but to get it
right.
Lembit
Öpik:
Perhaps the hon. Lady recalls that the late
Patsy Calton took the same view as her and regarded it as her
responsibility to look at flaws in legislation. Although I had not
spotted a number of the points that the hon. Lady made, she is entitled
to expect not just me but the entire Committee to take seriously the
points that she makes. As she says, she is operating not in the
interests of her party, but in the interests of 1.7 million people in
the
Province.
Lady
Hermon:
I very much appreciate the tribute paid by the
hon. Gentleman.
I now
move swiftly to article 34, entitled “Fingerprints and samples:
supplementary”. Again, the technological improvements have to be
welcomed. I am pleased that fingerprints can be taken at places other
than a police station. Will the Minister, who will look after the
budget for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, say whether any
thought has been given to setting aside some of that budget for
hand-held technology, so that fingerprints and palm prints can be taken
when police officers are out on
duty?
Sammy
Wilson:
The hon. Lady has highlighted—indeed, has
put her finger on—the reason for this provision. Under the
information technology programme for the police it is intended that
hand-held machines can be used—although I am not too sure about
the technology—which means that identification can be done on
the
roadside.
Lady
Hermon:
It is always a benefit to have someone who speaks
for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, although he is not technically
doing so this afternoon. He provides a welcome confirmation to the
Committee that the Policing Board, on which he continues to play a
significant role as a member, has considered that
technology.
Perhaps
the Minister could look at article 34, particularly as it relates to
fingerprints that can be taken by “relevant law enforcement
authorities”, which are defined
as
“(a) a
police force ... (b) the Serious Organised Crime
Agency”
and various other
bodies. Can the Minister confirm whether the Assets Recovery Agency
currently has the power to take fingerprints? Is the Assets Recovery
Agency a relevant law-enforcement authority? As I have indicated to the
Committee, I am concerned about the future of the Assets Recovery
Agency, which has done such tremendously good work in tackling
paramilitary and organised crime and in taking assets off some of the
major gangsters and criminals in Northern Ireland. There is a proposal
that it willbe soaked up into the Serious Organised Crime
Agency—I am bitterly opposed to that. Can the Minister confirm
whether the Assets Recovery Agency has the capacity to take
fingerprints? If it does andif the agency is absorbed, what
will become of the fingerprints that it has stored and any of its
technology?
Finally, I
bring the Committee’s attention to the definitions of a police
force, as contained in article 34. There has been a huge amount of
adverse and ill-informed criticism of Northern Ireland’s Royal
Ulster Constabulary. I would bring it to the Committee’s
attention that the legal title of the Police Service of Northern
Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve is set out in
the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The operational title has
changed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but as for the legal
title:
“The
body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall
continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(incorporating the Royal Ulster
Constabulary).”
For
operational purposes the title was changed, but for legal purposes not.
That is a technical amendment that can be made at any time. With those
comments, I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
3.22
pm
Sammy
Wilson:
I shall be brief, because the hon. Lady has gone
through the order with a fine-toothed comb. We welcome the
order.
The hon. Member
for North Down keeps referring to me as a current member of the
Policing Board, but, under the Trade Descriptions Act, that is
incorrect. I have been demoted or unseated, whatever the term may be.
However, a number of the issues contained in the order address some of
the things that, during my time on the Policing Board, we recognised as
problems, which, if not currently arising, might in the future. One
issue was fingerprinting. The Policing Board is currently investigating
the technology to allow for fingerprinting by officers out on the job,
rather than bringing people back into the police station, and
additional powers would be needed for
that.
I want to
welcome a number of things. The first is the extension to allow for
searches and for the stop and search of people carrying fireworks. For
that legislation to be available in Northern Ireland is long overdue,
especially given the organised way that the fireworks legislation is
now being flouted, sometimes by gangs, which are deliberately doing so
and making a lot of money. It is important that the additional powers
should be available.
I
do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire
regarding the number of arrests owing to the extension of the powers of
arrest—for example, for ascertaining someone’s name or
whatever. I believe that to be a very important additional power. I
know this through my role in Belfast city council. Quite frequently,
illegal street traders escaped by giving false names, although it was
known that false names were being given. By giving a false name and
forfeiting a few goods, they could walk away without having to appear
in court. It cost the council an immense amount of money. The nature of
some of the areas where the illegal markets were held meant that the
council officer had to be accompanied by the police.
I welcome the granting of this
power; I do not think that it will lead to more arrests, but when
people are stopped they will give their proper name. I do not see that
it will create the problem that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has
highlighted.
Lembit
Öpik:
The hon. Gentleman puts the other side of the
case. I hope that in order to determine which of us is right, the
Minister will confirm that he will monitor the situation, so that if
things transpire as I fear they will, we shall be able to do something
about it. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, I have raised a concern
that is not founded on fact.
Sammy
Wilson:
The Policing Board has raised concerns about the
provisions relating to detained persons, particularly with regard to
vulnerable persons. The board made the good point that in the code of
practice, provision should be made for people who were deaf or mentally
disoriented, for example, and would find it difficult to communicate
with police officers. The code of practice should reflect that there
should be protection for such people, in the form of someone who could
help them communicate with the police while they were
detained.
By and
large, I welcome the powers that the instrument grants. Many of them
reflect changing circumstances. The hon. Member for North Down raised
the issue of the impact assessment of searches of properties and so on.
Warrants for multiple searches and searches of premises that are
initially not known to belong to the individual concerned are
absolutely essential, especially given that criminals use a wide
variety of premises. The police need the flexibility to respond to that
and move quickly from one set of premises to another. I therefore do
not share the hon. Lady’s concerns and I hope that we do not
impose unnecessary restraints, which would take away the flexibility
that the order is intended to
give.
3.29
pm
Paul
Goggins:
I thank all hon. Members for the varying levels
of welcome that they have given to the legislation. The hon. Member for
Tewkesbury asked why the measures are being implemented now if a
further review is taking place. At some point, it is necessary to
bridge the gap between that question and the point made by the hon.
Member for North Down, who quite rightly pressed for the introduction
as quickly as possible of measures such as those contained in the
order. A review is taking place, in which the Northern Ireland Office
will participate. A further update of PACE may be necessary as a result
of that, but given the delays that we have had, we could not wait any
longer, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will
accept.
I think that I
answered the hon. Gentleman’s final question in my opening
remarks. The decision to classify 17-year-olds as children is the
result of international conventions, representations that have been
made and our own considerations. I understand that my colleagues in the
Home Office are reviewing the matter along similar lines. I am sure
that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that Northern Ireland is ahead
of England and Wales on that matter.
Sammy
Wilson:
It might be important for the Minister to spell
out exactly what the consequences of this change will be for the
police. Although he has skirted over them, I understand that they could
be quite significant.
Paul
Goggins:
Indeed, that is why in the order it is very clear
that the beginning of the use of the powers contained in relation to
17-year-olds will be delayed for a little while at least because the
vast majority of children who will be arrested now that 17-year-olds
are classified as children will be 17. They will need, for example, an
appropriate adult to be made available. The police will need to operate
the code, which I will come on to in a second, in relation to the
treatment of children who are detained for questioning and so on in a
police station rather differently from if they were adults. Putting in
place the resources and training necessary will require some further
time and that is why there is a delay. The hon. Gentleman is quite
correct that it will place additional responsibilities on the police
and we need to make sure they are properly equipped to make that
possible.
I am
grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his welcome,
particularly for the changes we are making in relation to 17-year-olds.
It was good of him to acknowledge that. It was clear from his remarks
that, if he were in my position, he might draw the balance between the
need to empower the police and the need to protect the interests of the
individual citizen in a different place. He made that clear. It is
important to make a judgment about where to draw that balance. If he
and I differ on where we make that judgment, so be it. What is
important is that we are transparent about
that.
He asks how the
powers in the new order will be monitored. They will be monitored in a
number of different ways. Senior police officers will monitor the
day-to-day operational use of these powers, but also, of course, we
have the oversight provided by the Policing Board and the police
ombudsman. So we will have that degree of monitoring and we will also
have the PACE statistics, which are gathered and published on an annual
basis. I hope he is reassured that, while he draws the balance in a
different place from me, this has to be done in a transparent way and
there has to be
accountability.
When
it comes to issues such as how 17-year-olds will be dealt with and how
children will be dealt with, codes will be issued pursuant to the
legislation that we are considering today that will inform in great
detail how these powers should be used by police officers. Again, they
will be closely monitored. I hope that offers him some
reassurance.
The hon.
Gentleman drew the Committee’s attention to the new powers of
arrest with the test of necessity that is spelt out on the face of the
draft order. Officers are accountable for the way in which they
implement those powers and I have just set out some of the mechanisms
for that accountability. With referenceto how this legislation
will impact in terms of disproportionality, in Northern Ireland there
is significant equality legislation and indeed this legislation has
been tested against that. We regard it as completely compliant with
that. The strong equality legislation in Northern Ireland is a further
test, but
again this is something that can be monitored over time. I hope this
will provide him with the reassurance he seeks. I can further reassure
him that inspectors who will now have new powers to make decisions and
authorise some of these powers will be appropriately trained. They will
be very well trained indeed. We have a strong commitment to making sure
the Police Service of Northern Ireland is adequately and properly
trained at all levels.
From the point of view of other
Members of the Committee the hon. Member for North Down may have been
going rather slowly, but from my point of view she was going very
quickly. If I did not manage to keep up with every single detail she
raised I apologise and I will certainly write to her if anything is
missing. I am sure she will intervene if anything is missing. Her tour
de force this afternoon demonstrates again her meticulous approach. On
behalf of her constituents and the people of Northern Ireland she quite
rightly tests the Minister and the legislation. I am grateful and I am
sure the whole House is grateful for that.
In relation to fireworks, she
made the point about Northern Ireland languishing behind. I have to say
that the Northern Ireland legislation in relation to fireworks is much
tougher than it is in England. Some of my constituents might like the
tougher legislation in Northern Ireland. Apart from a few sparklers and
some domestic fireworks, the only circumstances in which ordinary
people can use fireworks in Northern Ireland is if they apply and pay
for a licence. That is certainly a more stringent regime than the one
here. It is very important that the police have the necessary powers to
deal with someone whom they suspect of having fireworks, which might be
in the boot of a car, for example, and for which they do not have a
licence, or, even more worryingly, as the hon. Member for East Antrim
suggests, fireworks connected with organised criminal activity. The
order will provide the police with those
powers.
The hon. Lady
mentioned the devolution of policing and justice and asked whether I
was confident that placing such powers in the hands of Northern Ireland
Ministers was the right thing to do. I say a resounding yes, but on the
basis that, as the hon. Gentleman made clear in his intervention, there
is a stable Government and all parties are committed to the rule of
law. The First and Deputy First Ministers and the Assembly must agree,
as too must this House, before policing and justice can be devolved. I
hope that we move on that sooner rather than later—I think that
those were the words of the hon. Gentleman—but we must be
confident that there is proper and true respect for law and
order.
The hon. Lady
asked about the ombudsman and why she is named as one of the
consultees. A general answer would be that owing to her oversight it is
important to listen to her considerations in the light of
investigations that she has carried out and the insight that she has
acquired. More importantly, she is named because her staff operate
under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They have powers of
arrest so it is important that we consult the
ombudsman as much as we consult the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
She and her staff operate the powers
concerned.
Lady
Hermon:
On a technical point, if the police
ombudsman’s staff have powers under PACE, as the Minister has
indicated is the case, and if they get it wrong, who investigates
them?
Paul
Goggins:
That is a very good question. I suppose that a
complaint would be made formally to the ombudsman. That would be
possible. A complaint could be made to her about one of her members of
staff. However, the hon. Lady will remember that we debated elsewhere
the power of the Human Rights Commission to conduct a further
investigation, if one had not already been carried out. Her question
might be the example for which I was searching in that discussion. The
ombudsman’s office would have its own internal disciplinary
procedures so it would be possible for the complaint to be reviewed
internally and, if necessary, to carry out a further investigation.
However, I shall look into the detail to satisfy myself that that is
correct. I think that the ombudsman could carry out that
investigation.
Sammy
Wilson:
I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that
he will look into that further. However, given the incongruous
situation in which the police ombudsman believes that the police need
to be investigated independently, but that the ombudsman’s
office will not be, and given also the office’s allegations of
abuse of the powers of arrest by police officers, does the Minister not
agree that the operations of the ombudsman’s office should be
independently
scrutinised?
Paul
Goggins:
As I promised the hon. Lady, I shall look into
the detail of those powers, and the procedure for dealing with
complaints about the conduct of the police ombudsman’s staff
further to the use of the internal disciplinary processes, which might
be sufficient. I shall happily look into the detail and write to the
hon. Members
concerned.
It might
interest the Committee to know that some 300 organisations were
consulted, including all those mentioned by the hon. Lady, and some 19
of them submitted
responses.
The hon.
Lady asked under what other powers the police could stop people who may
have committed an offence. If the police suspect that an offence has
been committed or is about to be committed under any legislation, they
have that power. In the example that she gave, the Road Traffic
Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 allows constables to stop a
vehicle if they believe that its driver is
disqualified.
One or
two of the changes that the hon. Lady mentioned relating to indictable
offences replacing serious arrestable offences are simply consequential
amendments because of the new wording that we are using for the powers
of arrest. She asked about the possibility of risk assessments being
carried out prior to an entry into someone’s home, which was an
important question. A constable has to go to a lay magistrate and set
out specific information about the
case, and he must provide justification for a warrant so that he can go
into someone’s property. The lay magistrate can ask any
question, and his questioning can be tough. Further to that, a code
will be issued on the matter, and I will ensure that when it has been
drawn up it will be brought to the attention of those
involved.
The hon.
Lady asked about the use of the phrase “a person so
authorised” to carry out certain powers. That does refer to
civilian staff, and she will know from other legislation that we are
creating a group of civilian staff who will be able to act with some of
the powers of a police officer. They might include, for example, a
financial investigator, a computer analyst or someone with similar
specific skills that are outwith the scope of an ordinary police
officer but essential to an investigation. They will only be able to
carry out their functions under the supervision of a constable, so they
will not be able to freelance, as it were, even with their limited
powers. They will have to be under the direct supervision of a
constable. The hon. Lady is right about the people involved: police
community support officers are one group of civilian staff with limited
police powers and we shall seek to introduce others in legislation that
will soon be debated in the
House.
I was grateful
to the hon. Lady for her explanation of the precise part of the draft
order that she was referring to—proposed new article 26(3). She
drew attention to the line that refers to someone who is “guilty
of the offence”. That will mean someone has been caught
red-handed, seen doing it and admitted it there and then. She is right
to draw the distinction between empowering an officer to arrest someone
in such a case and the finding of guilt in a court of law. The power of
arrest does not supersede the power of a court to find guilt, but those
are the circumstances in which an arrest will be able to be made under
the proposed new article—if somebody commits an offence before
the eyes of an officer and perhaps even admits
guilt.
The hon. Lady
asked about the use of new technology, and the hon. Member for East
Antrim, with his experience of the Policing Board, was able to update
the Committee on the work that it has been sponsoring and the work that
the PSNI is doing to explore the matter. The powers that we are
introducing will complement the more flexible use of new technology and
new arrangements. For example, the use of street bail will be easier.
We want to ensure that the police are not tied down by an overly
bureaucratic system so that they can use new technology and more
flexible systems but still carry out their important
functions.
The hon.
Lady mentioned the list of organisations in article 34. Each has its
own database of fingerprints, and the article will enable the PSNI to
refer to those databases in the pursuit of a particular criminal. It
lists all the organisations. The Asset Recovery Agency is not listed as
it does not have its own database. If it needed to access fingerprints
it would go through the police.
On the subject of the Asset
Recovery Agency, I think the hon. Lady wanted me to reassure her
constituents and the people of Northern Ireland generally that the
work of asset recovery in Northern Ireland will continue to develop and
grow from its strong start under the leadership of Alan McQuillan. It
has done some great work, very assiduously, in recent
years.
The Home Office
has given clear assurances to Ministers in Northern Ireland that the
resources committed to asset recovery will not diminish and that there
will be clear leadership for the very important asset recovery work
within the new merged organisation when the Asset Recovery Agency and
the Serious Organised Crime Agency come together.
There is a very high level of
recognition of asset recovery work in Northern Ireland and growing
public confidence that new powers are being used to seize assets. Last
year alone the Asset Recovery Agency seized £11 million-worth of
criminal assets. We must ensure that the word goes out to the public
that the fight will go on and, indeed, that the criminal element in
Northern Ireland knows that the pursuit of their criminally gained
assets will continue.
The hon. Lady’s remarks
about the legal name for the Police Service of Northern Ireland are
correct, as she
knows.
I again thank
the hon. Member for East Antrim; I have referred several times to his
remarks and I hope I have covered all the points that he
raised.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister’s speech has been a tour de
force, replying to the many points that were raised. However, one is
outstanding: it relates to those civilians who are brought in as
community support officers to assist constables and who are always
supervised by them. If those civilians get something wrong, or do
something wrong, does the complaint go to the police
ombudsman?
Now that
the Minister has explained how a constable can be the arresting
officer, the jury, and the judge and confirm that a person is guilty of
the offence, will he also confirm that the drafting of the order is
compliant with the European convention on human rights and the Human
Rights Act, which guarantees people a fair trial, before a constable
makes up his mind that they are
guilty?
Paul
Goggins:
In answer to the hon. Lady’s second point,
I can confirm that the measure is compliant with the Human Rights Act.
In respect of the first point, I apologise for omitting to reply to her
question. Anyone who exercises the powers of a constable is accountable
to the police ombudsman, who has that oversight even if the person is a
civilian operating with limited police powers. If the person had no
police powers but was acting under the supervision of a constable, the
constable would in turn be accountable to the ombudsman. The ombudsman
has that oversight role whenever police powers are exercised.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Policeand Criminal
Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland)Order
2007.
Committee
rose at eleven minutes to Four
o’clock.
