The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
†
Mr.
Mike
Weir
†
Abbott,
Ms Diane
(Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
(Lab)
†
Afriyie,
Adam
(Windsor)
(Con)
†
Allen,
Mr. Graham
(Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
†
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Gibson,
Dr. Ian
(Norwich, North)
(Lab)
†
Goggins,
Paul
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
Grogan,
Mr. John
(Selby)
(Lab)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
†
Lazarowicz,
Mark
(Edinburgh, North and Leith)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Mahmood,
Mr. Khalid
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
†
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
†
Stoate,
Dr. Howard
(Dartford)
(Lab)
†
Streeter,
Mr. Gary
(South-West Devon)
(Con)
†
Taylor,
Mr. Ian
(Esher and Walton)
(Con)
†
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
†
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Yeo,
Mr. Tim
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Sixth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 28
February
2007
[Mr.
Mike Weir
in the
Chair]
Draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (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 Policing (Miscellaneous
Provisions)(Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
Mr.
Weir, it is very good to see you in the Chair this afternoon. Copies of
the order were laid before the House on 5 February 2007 and debated in
the House of Lords yesterday.
On 9 January 2006, my
predecessor asked officials to prepare a draft policing order that
would update existing legislation and bring Northern Ireland into line
with provisions in England and Wales. Since then officials have been
working closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and with
other stakeholders on a number of policy areas that are now included in
the draft order.
Articles 3 to 7
provide—
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Will the Minister give
way?
Paul
Goggins:
I am amazed that I managed to get 15
seconds into my speech before the hon. Lady
intervened.
Lady
Hermon:
It is a delight to sit under your
chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Weir. I would hate to
disappoint the Minister: others perhaps, but not this one. Given that
he has consulted for such a long period on bringing Northern Ireland
into line with the rest of Great Britain in terms of policing, why is
he proceeding by a wretched Order in Council, which is unamendable and
will be done and dusted in a very short time? Instead he could have
used a piece of primary legislation that was introduced recently, the
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill. Why is he using this
dreadful method this
afternoon?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Lady will know, because she attends all
our deliberations on these issues, that we have brought a number of
measures before the House, such as this order today and the Bill she
mentioned. The primary purpose of this draft order is in relation to
normal policing matters. The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland)
Bill has rather more to do with the security situation in Northern
Ireland and making sure that we have in place the necessary safeguards
and systems to deal with the remaining threats that are still present
in Northern Ireland, despite all the moves towards normalisation that
we can see. I hope that the hon. Lady can appreciate that there is a
difference. This measure has been consulted on extensively. Indeed, it
comes with the support of the Chief Constable and the
Policing Board. She will appreciate that some of the
measures we are proposing will help to make the police in Northern
Ireland even more effective and efficient. I look forward to the
further interventions that she will undoubtedly
make.
Articles
3 to 7 provide further opportunities for the PSNI to civilianise posts
by designating a range of police powers and duties to investigating
officers, detention officers and escort officers and through the
introduction of two new categories of designated civilian staff: staff
custody officers and police community support officers. It might help
the Committee if I dwell for a minute or two on the last two of those
five civilian posts.
The staff custody officer is a
new post that we will seek to introduce in this legislation, but it
will not commence immediately. The Home Office is currently engaged
with nine police forces across England and Wales, introducing staff
custody officers at a range of different pilot sites. It is important
to wait and learn from the assessment of those pilots before we
introduce these posts in Northern Ireland so that we can introduce them
in a well-informed, intelligent
way.
We
are further down the road in relation to police community support
officers. The first phase of the first 400 police community support
officers will begin to come on stream in May this year when their
recruitment will start. They will then be trained and introduced into
active service in around a year’s time. We already know about
the effectiveness of PCSOs and we hope to see them on the streets of
Northern Ireland then.
Schedule 5
includes the 17 different powers that PCSOs can be given, although it
is our intention only in the immediate future that six of those powers
could be used by
PCSOs.
Lady
Hermon:
Before the Minister glides on to the next point in
his argument to persuade us all that this is a really good idea, will
he tell us how long training for CSOs will be compared with that for
regular police trainees? What will their pay scale be compared with
that of regular constables after a long period of
training?
Paul
Goggins:
The normal training period for PCSOs is about six
weeks of full-time training prior to their coming into operation. Of
course, the PSNI will recruit people who are ideally suited to that
particular role, and PCSOs will learn from experience and their
colleagues in the PSNI. I cannot give precise details about pay and
conditions, but I will happily make further inquiries and write to the
hon. Lady.
Mr.
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab):In
Birmingham, under the “Fair Cities” initiative and other
Learning and Skills Council initiatives, there are schemes through
which people who want to be PCSOs are given training before the
recruitment process. That is separate from the training that is given
to the people who are selected for the
job.
Paul
Goggins:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
information about what happens in his constituency. The PSNI has the
advantage of being able to learn from recruitment and training
procedures elsewhere in the UK. When PCSOs are introduced in Northern
Ireland, it will be with the benefit of that
experience.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I suggest that the
answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down would be
not to reinvent the wheel but to take the precedents that have been
tried out and established in other parts of the UK. There is quite a
precedent regarding pay scales. Will the Minister share with the entire
Committee his decision on how to proceed in that
regard?
Paul
Goggins:
I will happily write to all Committee members
with any details that are pertinent to pay and conditions. The PSNI
will want to learn from experience that has been gained elsewhere, so
that we can put PCSO training in place in Northern Ireland right from
the beginning of the initiative. PCSOs are highly visible and their
limited powers mean that they are not drawn into the bureaucracy of
policing as readily as others. They can be out there on the street and
build up confidence. That is important when policing any area, be it in
Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the
UK.
Article 8
streamlines the police trainee recruitment process to allow the PSNI to
make provisional police trainee appointments subject to the
satisfactory completion of medical tests and security vetting.
Currently, new recruits are drawn into a pool of potential police
officers, only some of whom are finally appointed. Everyone who is
drawn into the pool is given full medical and security checks, even
though many of them will not go on to serve as police officers. Under
this measure, only those who are provisionally appointed will be given
those checks. That will not reduce the safeguards regarding appointed
police officers, but will save about £540,000 a year, which can
be redirected to front-line policing. I hope that the Committee will
welcome the
measure.
Article 9
changes the recruitment procedures for police support staff in line
with those for police trainees. The measures that I have just outlined
will be replicated for police support staff. Article 9 also includes a
power for the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that
designated civilians are vetted to the same standard as police
trainees. The same benchmark will be set for the vetting of civilian
and support staff as for police trainees. That should add to public
confidence in Northern
Ireland.
Article
10 reintroduces legislative provisions originally contained in the
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 that enabled the PSNI to address an
acute shortage of detective constables by the recruitment from other
forces of experienced constables with the required skills. That
provision lapsed, so we are seeking to reintroduce it in this draft
order. Members of the Committee will know that in recent years the only
entry route into the PSNI has been as a trainee. Over time that will
mean that the PSNI develops an experienced work force at every level,
but it currently has gaps in the provision of necessary skills,
particularly at detective constable level. We want to give the Chief
Constable the ability to recruit from outside Northern Ireland straight
into the more experienced level of detective constable. This sensible
move will equip the Chief Constable to be able to do his job
properly.
Lady
Hermon:
I am most grateful for the Minister’s
endless patience in taking interventions, but I am disappointed that he
has failed to bring to the Committee’s
attention the fact that in Northern Ireland there will be a
discriminatory recruitment procedure for all the categories of officer
that he has just outlined. Will he explain why it is appropriate and
moral, rather than morally objectionable, to recruit community support
officers and others on the basis of their religion? Why is that
acceptable in Northern Ireland?
Paul
Goggins:
I know from previous exchanges, discussions and
correspondence that the hon. Lady feels strongly about this. The
exceptional measure that we have put in place allows for 50-50
recruitment, ensuring that for every appointment that is made a
Catholic appointment is made in parallel. The purpose is clear, and she
understands the objective, even if she does not sympathise
with the methodology. The aim is to increase the number of
Catholics serving in the PSNI.
The Patten commission found
that Catholic representation in the PSNI was 8 per cent. That figure
has risen to more than 21 per cent. as a result of the recruitment
system that is in place and we are confident that by 2010-11 the target
proportion of 30 per cent. will be reached. I understand that this
mechanism is controversial and exceptional, but, in order to ensure
that the PSNI more fully reflects the community that it serves, it is a
justifiable one.
We
have consulted on bringing an order before Parliament that will
re-engage the powers to continue with the 50-50 recruitment procedure.
I expect that this will be the last time that we have to do that,
because the period up to 2010-11 will then be covered. In the near
future, I hope to be able to bring such a proposal before Parliament,
so there will doubtless be other opportunities to debate this
issue.
Lady
Hermon:
Does the Minister accept that the circumstances
have altogether changed? As I recall it, not so long ago the Government
welcomed Sinn Fein’s acceptance of policing. Although 50-50
recruitment was identified by the Patten commission as a way of
redressing a historical imbalance, we are talking about a blank sheet
of paper: there is no history of any community in Northern Ireland
having a low level of representation in the number of community support
officers. Why is 50-50 recruitment on the basis of one’s
religion, or non-religion, provided for in the draft order that we are
to approve this afternoon? I shall vote against this legislation, and I
hope that by the time I have finished speaking others will do so too.
Given that there is no historical imbalance to correct, why are we
using 50-50 recruitment?
Paul
Goggins:
I, like the hon. Lady, welcome Sinn Fein’s
historic commitment to support policing and the rule of law. That is a
necessary step in order that next week’s elections will lead to
devolved administration and then, rightly, to government in Northern
Ireland by Ministers directly accountable to the people of Northern
Ireland.
I repeat
that I understand why the hon. Lady feels so strongly about this, but I
again put it to her that the historical position is still unresolved.
The historical position was that Catholic representation in the PSNI
was 8 per cent. It is now 21 per cent. and rising, but it is
still not where we need it to be. The fact that all parties support
policing and the rule of law and are encouraging their communities to
work with the police will, over time, make it normal for people from
all communities to join the police, whether as police officers, support
staff or as PCSOs. However, we are not yet at the point where we can
pull back from the measures we have introduced that deal with the
historic problems of composition within the police service. Therefore,
we quite rightly employ 50-50 in relation to PCSOs and support staff
when we are recruiting six or more individuals. I understand the hon.
Lady does not agree with that but that is my explanation, and it is
wholly
defensible.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The Minister has not
answered the hon. Lady’s question. There is evidently no
discrimination in this new sector because the new sector does not yet
exist. The only way the Minister can sustain the consistency of his
argument in defending positive discrimination is by making the
assumption that the recruitment process itself involves some degree of
prejudice against Catholic applicants. Given, as the hon. Member for
North Down (Lady Hermon) rightly points out, that Sinn Fein has now
committed itself to policing, I am at a loss to understand what the
motivation to introduce a 50-50 requirement is when, by the
Minister’s own inference, he is satisfied that the underlying
prejudicial problems which existed in the police in the past have now
vanished.
Paul
Goggins:
I am sorry if I am not making myself clear
enough. I will have another go. I am not saying that there is prejudice
within the recruitment system—we have a fair approach to
recruitment within the police service. I am putting it to the hon.
Gentleman, the hon. Member for North Down and indeed the whole
Committee that while we welcome Sinn Fein making this historic
commitment, we have some way to go before everybody right across every
community sees and identifies with the PSNI as their own police service
that they want to be a part of. Therefore for this further period the
measures I soon hope to bring before this House, which seek a further
extension of the 50-50 provisions, will I hope be the last time we have
to do so because by the year 2010-11, we will have a much fuller and
fairer representation of the Catholic community right across the Police
Service of Northern Ireland. We therefore believe that it is necessary
to keep these provisions in place in relation to the police community
support officers, just as we have it for the rest of the police
service. I give way to the hon. Lady.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister say something encouraging to the
ethnic minorities who have remained very loyal to the people of
Northern Ireland through what was technically bloody mayhem. This
applies particularly to the Chinese community and those of the Jewish
and Muslim faith who have moved into Northern Ireland, who effectively
will be discriminated against by the legislation which we are going to
approve this afternoon.
If the Minister would care to
look at the Patten report he would see that in the words of the report,
“every effort” was to be made to increase the
representation of ethnic minorities within the police service. How does
this order help those within ethnic
minorities?
Paul
Goggins:
The measure does not prevent people from any of
the communities the hon. Lady has mentioned from applying to join the
Police Service of Northern Ireland, either as police officers or as
police community support officers once they were introduced, or in any
other capacity. Indeed the police service would welcome applications
from all of those communities. Patten found that an 8 per cent.
representation of Catholics in the police service was not acceptable.
It is improving through the special measures that we have and within a
period of three or four years we will be in a position where have
achieved the 30 per cent. representation recommended by the Patten
Commission. Of course the hon. Lady is quite right and we welcome and
encourage applications from all sectors of the community in Northern
Ireland.
Lembit
Öpik:
I do not wish to prolong this element of the
debate further than this intervention, but the Minister has to accept
that there is discrimination against the other ethnic groups which the
hon. Member for North Down pointed out, and I too would point out by
the nature of the mathematics of the Government’s own arguments.
That was quite clearly established in the debates we had on the floor
of the House when it was introduced.
The question for the Minister
and which he has not yet answered is why, if he feels that the
recruitment procedures are now fair and not prejudicial against
Catholics, does he want to maintain a 50-50 recruitment policy for new
groups of officers who have not even been created yet? Therefore we are
starting from a zero base, he recognises that we have a fair
recruitment system and yet he wants to introduce something that works
on the assumption that the system may not be
fair.
Paul
Goggins:
It is not only about the fairness of the
recruitment system, but about the willingness of the people in a
particular community to put themselves forward and apply for posts in
the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Frankly, I do not think that we
are where we need to be, but I am sure that Sinn Fein’s
commitment will make a huge difference. As we roll the process forward
in the months ahead, I expect to see more and more members of all
communities applying to the PSNI and for the new positions for police
community support officers. I also expect to see people working with
the police, reporting crime or appearing as witnesses in court, which
is every bit as important. On recruitment, however, it would be
premature to say that we are where we need to be at the end of February
2007. That may not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and it will certainly
not satisfy the hon. Member for North Down. We have a difference of
opinion, but I think that I have an entirely defendable position,
because the fact is that improvements to the make-up of the Police
Service of Northern Ireland have been made and we will see further
improvements.
Article 11 gives the police
ombudsman the power to apply to the Public Prosecution Service for the
reinvestigation of police officers who have been acquitted of a
qualifying offence where new evidence has been obtained. The hon. Lady
will remember—we discuss the matter every time we debate
legislation—that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed the rules
on double jeopardy. Before the 2003 Act, people acquitted of an offence
could not be tried again for it. We changed the law so that in cases of
murder, sexual assault or other serious offences, in which there is
new, compelling evidence, the police can apply to the prosecution
service to reinvestigate an individual regarding the original offence,
and perhaps bring another prosecution. We have seen prosecutions of
cases in which DNA evidence that was not capable of interpretation in
an original trial has led to the conviction of people for murder or
other heinous crimes. The 2003 Act applies equally to Northern Ireland.
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland can apply
to the Public Prosecution Service to re-open an investigation when
there is new and compelling evidence in a case involving one of the
serious offences listed in the 2003 Act.
However, the reinvestigation of
a police officer in relation to a serious offence will be carried out
by the police ombudsman, not the Chief Constable. Clearly, that the
ombudsman was not given the necessary powers to reinvestigate police
officers in a parallel way to the Chief Constable was an oversight in
the drafting of the 2003 Act. Police officers who may have been
acquitted of an offence may now be reinvestigated for serious offences
when there is new and compelling evidence. The measure creates a level
playing field for the ombudsman and the Chief Constable as regards
applications to the prosecution service.
Articles 12 and 13 provide
additional powers to the police. Article 12 allows the police to close
roads, divert traffic, or “prohibit or restrict” the use
of a road or waterway when that is
considered
“necessary for
the preservation of the peace or the maintenance
of”
public order. Article
13 makes provisions for the police to examine documents or electronic
records to establish whether they contain evidence that a person has
committed or is preparing to commit a serious crime.
The PSNI has made huge progress
in a very short period. Last week’s international policing
conference in Belfast underlined the fact that the force is now more
representative of the communities that it serves and is as committed to
the delivery of neighbourhood policing as to the fight against
organised crime. The powers in the draft order will help them to do
their job more effectively and efficiently, and I commend it to the
Committee.
2.54
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr. Weir. The hon. Member for North Down, not
“North, South”— [
Interruption.] I am sorry,
I was confused by a Minister who recently referred to another
constituency as “Down, South”. I do not think that my
slip was quite as bad as that. As she mentioned, we had so much primary
legislation going through the House—I think
that we had two Bills in one week on one occasion—that one
wonders why such issues cannot be includedin it. We had a
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which by its very
nature surely could have included such things, and we had a Justice and
Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, which also could have included
them.
As we have said
frequently, it is wrong for a Committee that is small and appointed and
cannot amend to decide such things. It is particularly wrong that we
cannot amend. There are one or two issues in the order with which,
having listened to the debate so far and examined it rather closely, I
am a little bit uncomfortable. I said to the Minister that I do not
have a major problem with it, but there are a few issues that I should
like to think about. I want to hear what other hon. Members have to say
and perhaps ask the Minister one or two questions before giving it
wholehearted
support.
This is an
extremely sensitive time. A number of us attended a meeting yesterday
with some retired police officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The ombudsman’s recent report, on whose accuracy I am not
qualified to comment, has caused a stir to say the least. It is an
extremely sensitive time to be talking about the ombudsman and any
extra powers or the future role of that person, regardless of which
appointee holds the post. It is a very sensitive time in Northern
Ireland in the aftermath of the report, so I have one or two questions
about the ombudsman’s future
role.
During
Monday’s debate in the House of Lords on extended powers, the
hon. Lady the Baroness Amos said that the ombudsman would have no extra
powers. Can the Minister confirm that? She also said that the double
jeopardy rule that will apply in Northern Ireland is identical to the
one that will apply in Great Britain.
Paul
Goggins
indicated
assent.
Mr.
Robertson:
The Minister is nodding, but I should like him
to confirm it, either in an intervention or when he winds
up.
If
my memory serves me correctly, I was one of the few people who voted
against quite a bit of legislation in the late ’90s with regard
to the agreement, particularly with regard to the 50-50 recruitment
policy. I fully understand the need to get the nationalist and indeed
the republican communities behind the police force. They have come
kicking and screaming. The words are now there, and the action has yet
to follow.
I
recognise that in a sensitive area such as Northern Ireland, it is
important that the police force, security services and court services
should reflect the population. I agree entirely with that, but against
that is the position that people are being turned down by the police
force for being of the wrong religion. That is a fact that cannot be
contested. It is what is happening in Northern Ireland.
Against the desire to see the
makeup of the police force reflect the community, we must balance the
fact that we have institutionalised sectarianism in recruitment to the
police force in Northern Ireland, just as we have done in the Assembly,
where one must
declare whether one is a unionist or a nationalist. We have
institutionalised sectarianism in Northern Ireland when countries such
as South Africa and Rwanda have recognised that the way forward is to
leave it behind. As far as I can see, the order extends that principle
to police support staff. I have concerns about that as
well.
The hon. Member
for North Down mentioned the recruitment of police community support
officers, particularly their training. Again, that issue was raised
during debate in the House of Lords. This is no reflection on those
doing the training in Northern Ireland; it is just that it is a newly
introduced scheme. Can we be sure that those support officers will
receive adequate training? Let us be honest: it is a rather more
difficult area to police than many if not all parts of the United
Kingdom.
I
also want to be sure that the order will not lead to a reduction in
police numbers. As we know we have seen a drastic reduction in police
numbers since Patten. We have not seen the reservists up to the numbers
that were promised. In certain areas we have seen that the Army is
providing the service that the police should have provided and perhaps
did provide in the past. There are many concerns about this. Can we be
sure that the recruitment of police community service officers will not
become an excuse to reduce the numbers of what might be called regular
police officers?
When
the order talks about giving positions to civilians to carry out work
currently undertaken by police officers, I understand that is to be in
line with what happens in Great Britain. But what assessment have the
Government made of the success of that process in Great Britain? Those
are my questions, but I should just like to make one point, which is
one that I have made before and the Minister knows that I will make
it.
We talk about
normalisation in the Province, but as he and I would agree we are not
quite there yet. It is unfortunate that certain powers that do not
exist in Great Britain, such the power on road closures, for example,
are given to the police in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that we
are not in the position of full mobilisation. Certain legislation is
dropping off the edge, with regard to emergency powers, but is being
reintroduced bit by bit in Statutory Instrument Committees. That is
unfortunate. The sooner we can get to a position where we can have true
normalisation and the Province is run the same as the rest of the
United Kingdom, albeit by a devolved Assembly, the better. I hope that
the Minister will address those questions when he winds
up.
3.2
pm
Lembit
Öpik:
May I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Weir? I hope that our discussion will not go over old
ground, save in as much as the Minister needs to account for decisions
that are slightly beyond me. May I also make the point, as I have done
many times before, that this process really is not how we should be
governing the lives of 1.5 million people? We have no capacity in a
Statutory Instrument Committee to amend the legislation. As ever, the
choice is either accept it or do not accept it.
The hon.
Member for Tewkesbury rightly observed that there was nothing to
prevent the Government from including these measures in primary
legislation on the Floor of the House. Had the Government done that we
would have been able to debate the details of the proposals at a
Committee stage and on Report and make modifications as we saw fit. As
it is, once again it is take it or leave it. I do not know how many
more times the Government intend to try the patience of those of us who
are serious about proper scrutiny of Government decisions. Even if
devolution is re-established at the end of next month, as we sincerely
hope it will be, the Government must look long and hard at the
non-devolved legislation that will continue to be discussed in this
place. I sincerely hope that the Government will carry out their
promise to review the procedures that we embark on to legislate for the
people of Northern
Ireland.
There are a
lot of serious provisions in the order. We should like to get some
reassurances from the Minister today. We have already discussed the
question of positive discrimination. The Minister was right to infer
that I am not persuaded that the Government are taking a very logical
approach to this. Either the current recruitment processes are fair or
they are not. The Minister made it quite clear in his response to my
intervention that he believes that the process are fair. That being the
case, there is no logical reason to maintain the 50-50 quota system for
categories of staff within the police which have not even been invented
yet. The only possible conclusion is that while the Minister says that
he trusts the recruitment processes, somewhere deep down in his heart
he does not. He still thinks there may be a risk that Catholics will
not get an equal opportunity to be recruited on the basis of merit.
There is not much
more we can say. The Minister is unlikely to withdraw the order on the
basis of our concerns, but I am disappointed that despite all their
assurances when the positive discrimination legislation was forced
through the House, the Government now seem to have taken on
discriminatory legislation as a habit rather than a one-off
exercise.
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman touched on one point about
recruitment. I am sure that it is fair now, but if we continue with the
50-50 split, does that not question the genuineness of the IRA’s
statement that it supports the police? There are two aspects:
recruitment and intimidation against joining. If we continue with
50-50, we put a big question mark against both those
aspects.
Lembit
Öpik:
The Minister failed to underline a point that
I have made many times myself. The biggest single barrier to increasing
the proportion of Catholics in the police was Sinn Fein and the IRA
themselves. They were preventing Catholics from coming forward to apply
through the threat of intimidation or worse against those Catholics who
had the courage to apply at the
time.
Nevertheless,
the points have been made and the Minister has heard them. He may have
heard them, but he has not really listened to them. So we end up with
an anomaly—a little piece of legislation on 50-50 that is
now an anachronism, if all the other positive claims that the Government
are making about the recruitment process are
correct.
We have seen
the police make use of civilian support staff in the roles of
investigating officers, detention officers and so forth. I turn to some
questions about those. Our primary concern relates to the training of
such individuals. Can the Minister inform us whether detailed training
schemes for each new type of officer have been developed yet? He has
suggested that we will learn from the precedent in other parts of the
UK. That is a satisfactory assurance, but we need it. It is
particularly important in relation to PCSOs, who will come into daily
contact with the public. I hope that he can reassure us that such
individuals will be required to undergo a rigorous training programme,
and that such programmes will include specific training on
relationships with young
people.
Does the
Minister expect PCSOs immediately to exercise all the powers, or will
he be true to his word and introduce six of those powers in the first
instance? I ask just for clarification. I can understand why the powers
in schedule 5, labelled (a) to (p) in the explanatory memorandum, have
been included. If he intends to phase their introduction, what will the
rationale be for extending the powers? Is it that the PCSOs will gain
more experience in applying power, or does it have more to do with the
local circumstances? I ask because there is a danger of ad hoc
modification of PCSOs’ powers, which will lead to uncertainty
about what those individuals can do and could lead to problems if those
individuals are given extra powers without training.
Turning to article 6, can the
Minister address the introduction of civilian staff custody officers?
He will know that Liberal Democrats expressed a great deal of concern
about the designation of that role during the passage of the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The custody officer acts
as a guarantor of the suspect’s rights and is a major—I
would say the major—guardian of the standards of the entire
system. It is vital that any person exercising such hugely important
powers should be properly independent and accountable.
The police custody officer is
accountable as an officer of the Crown, and is subject as such to
police disciplinary procedures. He or she is expected to resist any
illegal order. My concern is that civilian staff may be inclined to
worry about the consequences for their employment if they act
independently. What assurance will anyone in that role have that they
will not be punished for acting independently or put under any undue
pressure to act out of expedience rather than principle in their
clients’
interest?
In addition,
a police custody officer must hold at least the rank of sergeant. A
sergeant is an experienced police officer with years of familiarity
with police procedures. By contrast, there does not seem to be any
requirement for the civilian custody officer to have any particular
experience or training. This obviously would be a consideration in the
recruitment process, but a policy custody sergeant can also use the
right to ensure that police constables treat suspects correctly and
follow the PACE code of practice. How can a civilian member of staff be
able to assert the proper level of authority over constables and
therefore safeguard the
suspect’s rights? There is nothing in the legislation before us
today which indicates how that will be done. At the very least, the
Minister needs to write to the Committee explaining the process and to
assure us that there will be a process to ensure that anyone in the
civilian role of custody officer is able to exercise powers comparable
to those of a police custody sergeant.
Can the
Minister also inform us of the experience of police services in England
and Wales which have designated custody officers in this way? Is there
anything we can learn from that experience which could save us a lot of
time and trouble in Northern Ireland?
We welcome the provisions in
article 8. It is sensible that the medical and vetting procedures only
apply to those who reach the pool of qualified candidates. This will
undoubtedly ensure that the process of appointment is conducted more
expediently and less expensively than at present. Article 11 is also a
welcome provision.
The Liberal Democrats raised
concerns about the double jeopardy provisions of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 when it was proceeding through the House. We
recognise that it is not necessary to close this potential loophole in
regard to police officers by ensuring that the ombudsman is
involved.
In
conclusion, I will not be opposing this legislation. I am not happy
about the process and I maintain my historic concerns about the
positive discrimination. But those drawbacks are not in my judgment
sufficient to prevent a piece of legislation which, on balance, is
likely to do more good than harm going
through.
3.12
pm
Lady
Hermon:
It is a privilege to sit under your chairmanship
this afternoon Mr. Weir. It has been an interesting debate
thus far and I think the Minister and other Members of the Committee
will know from a series of interventions that I am not exactly happy
about the order. Since these matters have been in discussion for some
period of time it is disgraceful that the Government have chosen that
the Minister should introduce the two important issues—these are
not just Mickey Mouse affairs—of the introduction to Northern
Ireland for the first time ever of community support officers and a
further extension to the powers of the police ombudsman. This caused
enormous controversy at the time of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and
now, by a mere Order in Council, an unamendable secondary piece of
legislation, we are going to have these put through this
afternoon.
I am
highly critical of the Northern Ireland Office and I am sorry that it
is this particular Minister who is in the Committee today as I am very
reluctant to be critical of him. But since he has responsibility for
policing, he must bear the brunt of the criticism. We have a Northern
Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, a Northern Ireland Act
2006, Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, and we
currently have the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill,
primary legislation which was the appropriate vehicle to allow
amendment and open discussion. One wonders why an Order in Council
should be used for such controversial introduction of community support
officers by 50-50 recruitment procedures and the extension of the
powers of the police ombudsman by secondary legislation.
Given the importance of those
two areas I must put on the record my intense disappointment that there
is not another Northern Ireland MP in the Committee this afternoon. I
see that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) ought to have
been here and although Members of the SDLP did not wish to vote on the
Committee, they might have expressed a vague interest in policing. That
would have been nice, but they obviously do not see it as a
priority—a considerable disappointment.
Let me take the matter of
community support officers step by step. The Minister told us that we
must learn from the experience of Great Britain, and the hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire said that we should learn from examples. The
Minister has the benefit of having had more than a year to look at the
Home Office research into the effectiveness of community support
officers, and of having been a Home Office Minister, although we are
glad that he was poached by the Northern Ireland Office. The research
is not by a Northern Ireland political party or anyone with an axe to
grind, but by the Home Office. On 26 January 2006, the BBC News website
stated:
“The
Home Office study found CSOs had no ‘measurable impact’
on recorded crime.”
The
research, as reported, went on to
state:
“‘No
discernable differences were found in the trends in the numbers of
crimes and incidents between areas with and without CSOs, before and
after their
introduction.’”
If
the Home Office’s evidence suggests that crime is not reduced by
the presence on the streets of community support officers in Great
Britain, will the Minister explain why on earth are they being
introduced in Northern Ireland?
Jan Berry, the notable and
distinguished chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales,
is quoted in an article in The Sunday Telegraph—I am not
a regular reader of The Sunday Telegraph or The Daily
Telegraph—from 14 January, the headline of which
stated:
“Police cut frontline
officers in cash
crisis”.
The article
comments on the Home Secretary’s decision to scrap the crime
fighting fund restriction that was introduced in 2002, a measure that
was welcomed by police authorities and chief constables. Why? Because
it gave them extra flexibility to replace fully-trained police officers
with the cheaper police community support officers. I would like the
Minister to kick that attitude into touch.
I am sorry that the Minister
was unable to tell the Committee the pay scale for community support
officers in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he had the opportunity to
do an enormous amount of research and was well briefed by hard-working
civil servants from the Northern Ireland Office and elsewhere. The
chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales contributed to
the article to which I referred. She
stated:
“‘Police
numbers will fall as chief officers hire cheaper alternatives. When the
public realise they are not getting the police responses they expect,
and crime starts to rise, it will be too late to address the
cause.’”
I would like the Minister to assure the
Committee that CSOs are not going to be the cheap option in Northern
Ireland.
The Home
Office research shows no evidence they reduce crime, and the chairman
of the Police Federation of England and Wales, where we have CSOs, says
that she believes them to be the cheap option compared to regular,
full-time police officers. Will the Minister justify their introduction
to Northern Ireland?
I now move on to the sensitive
issue of the morally repugnant recruitment procedure that is introduced
by the draft order. The measure affects police support staff, community
support officers, police trainees and others. We are going to adopt a
despicable recruitment procedure that sets aside 50 per cent.
recruitment for those of the Roman Catholic faith and 50 per cent. for
all the others who are left. That means that those of an ethnic
minority, those of no faith, and those of Muslim, Jewish or Protestant
faith are all thrown together into the alternative 50 per cent. If that
does not put those from an ethnic minority at a distinct disadvantage,
I do not know what does.
May I just refresh the
Minister’s memory about something and bring it to the
Committee’s attention? He prayed in aid the findings of the
Patten commission. Its report in September 1999 identified that the
proportion of Catholic officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as it
was then, was 8 per cent. In anyone’s judgment, including my
own, that is an under-representation of those of the Catholic
faith.
A year before
the Patten commission was commissioned, the Select Committee on
Northern Ireland Affairs, of which I was not a member, was unanimous in
bringing to the attention of the House and the Government a report on
the composition, recruitment and training of the RUC. Paragraph 35 of
the third report of the 1997-98 session discussed a community attitude
survey of June 1997, which preceded the Patten commission and the
agreement. The report stated that the survey
“indicated that the major reason
preventing young Roman Catholics coming forward to join the RUC is the
fear of violence which would be offered towards them and to members of
their family...There are other inhibiting factors as well, such as
peer pressure or a reluctance to support the institutions of the state.
However, these featured in the Survey much less prominently than the
major inhibiting factor of fear of
intimidation.”
That was
the main inhibiting factor, a consequence of which was the low
percentage of those of a Catholic faith joining the RUC.
I sometimes get angry with the
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who in my view appears too
often on things. On “Any Questions?” on Radio 4, which
has Mr. Dimbleby in the chair, he has said that as a
consequence of the Patten report we increased Catholic recruitment in
the RUC from 8 per cent. to 12 per cent., but that before the Patten
report it had hardly any Roman Catholics.
To balance that, may I just add
something? My husband was the longest serving Chief Constable of the
RUC. He served through the awful years of the 1980s, with their hunger
strikes and the intense violence. His deputy chief constable was a
Roman Catholic, as were two of his very senior assistant chief
constables. That was at a time when we did not have
ceasefires from the Republican movement. Those men served the RUC
loyally and courageously from their Catholic homes and backgrounds,
supported valiantly by their families. I do not want them to be written
off as if they did not exist by a Secretary of State appearing on Radio
4.
To suggest that
the RUC discriminated against Catholics coming into it is erroneous.
The major fear was intimidation, which we are now told is gone because
Sinn Fein had an overwhelming vote at its ard fheis in Dublin. We saw
it televised—it was hands up boys and girls. More than 90 per
cent. at that meeting said that they were going to support the
police—and the Garda in the Republic. I welcome that hugely
because it seems that the war is over. When the Republican movement and
Sinn Fein encourage young people from South Armagh and west Belfast to
join the police we will know that the war is over. That is what they
should be doing now. There is no earthly justification today—on
28 February—for us to legislate to institutionalise religious
discrimination in the recruitment of community support officers. The
scene has
changed.
Lembit
Öpik:
Is it not symptomatic of mission creep, which
is the very thing that the hon. Lady and I have repeatedly warned of?
The Government have forced the positive discrimination measure into
legislation in a different Bill, and they are now loth to let it go,
even though there is no logical reason to maintain it. Does the hon.
Lady agree that one of the unfortunate habits of Northern Ireland
Ministers is that they do not move with the times, which makes us
rather cynical about their willingness to let go of this distasteful
piece of legislation?
Lady
Hermon:
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
that intervention, because it shows that he has changed his mind. As he
sat down after making his speech, he said that he was not going to vote
against the order. He now says that because this part of the order is
so despicable, he has changed his mind and could not possible
countenance its going on the statute book.
Lembit
Öpik:
The hon. Lady knows my complete agreement
with her on the matter, but I do not want to lead her to think that she
will be anything other than alone if she pushes the matter to a
Division.
Lady
Hermon:
I find that an extraordinary volte-face, but I
should not be surprised. In true Lib Dem style, he has shown support
for a principle, which he has turned on its head when asked whether he
will vote against the provision. I am sorry, but I cannot accept any
justification from the Lib Dems for supporting the order. The hon.
Gentleman’s sister party, the Alliance party, which is fielding
candidates in the Assembly elections, will be intrigued by his stance
this afternoon. I shall not go down that avenue, because it will not
enhance his reputation.
Lembit
Öpik:
Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Lady
Hermon:
I will concede and allow the hon. Gentleman to
intervene only if he is going to give me some good
news.
Lady
Hermon:
The hon. Gentleman, whichever way he
votes—he may yet change his mind—and I are in complete
agreement on one point. We are starting with a completely blank sheet,
as we have never had the experience of community support officers in
Northern Ireland. As I have suggested, the atmosphere and political
landscape in Northern Ireland are altogether changed, and Sinn Fein
cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot tell us, after its ard fheis
and ard chomhairle, that it now supports policing in order to bring
around an Assembly election, but at the same time not encourage young
Republicans to join the police service. That being so, and when there
is no more intimidation or fear for those of the Catholic faith
anywhere in Northern Ireland about applying to join the regular or
reserve PSNI or being a community support officer, there is no
justification for legislating now, at the end of February 2007, to
legalise religious discrimination. I find that morally
repulsive.
It is
absolutely disgraceful that a Labour Government, who brought home the
European convention on human rights, which includes the freedom to
exercise one’s religion without discrimination, and made it part
and parcel of our domestic law, will now somehow turn that on its head
and legalise all that we have hated—all that I have
hated—in Northern Ireland, which is discrimination on any
grounds. It is a disgrace for the Labour Government to do that this
afternoon.
Let me move
on to the other major issue. I am intrigued by the lay-out of the
order. It is a pity that the Minister did not explain why the Chief
Constable is under such pressure to get detectives with specialist
skills back into Northern Ireland. Under the Patten reforms, many
detectives with such specialist skills felt that their morale, their
courage and their determination in the face of 30 years of mayhem were
so undermined that they just left the police service. Therefore, we
have had to introduce special provisions to allow detectives with the
skills that have been lost to be made available to the Chief
Constable.
Slipped in
between article 10, “Appointment of constables with special
policing skills”, and article 12, “Closure of roads,
etc.”, we have the very interesting, significant and
controversial extension of the police ombudsman’s powers
contained in article 11, “Investigation by Police Ombudsman
following acquittal”. I preface all my remarks about the police
ombudsman with reference to my husband’s former employment as
the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He was highly
critical that when there was an independent inquiry into alleged
misconduct by RUC officers, chief constables from other forces—I
will name John Stalker and the Sampson inquiry—were brought in
to investigate the RUC. That situation was wholly unsatisfactory, and
it went on for far too long and did not give any confidence that there
was impartiality.
When
my husband Jack was well—hon. Members know that he has
Alzheimer’s—he was hugely supportive of the introduction
of an independent
police tribunal or police ombudsman. The police ombudsman was introduced
before the Patten report. People think that that role has somehow grown
out of the Belfast agreement, but it preceded the agreement and the
Patten report. On a personal note, the current police ombudsman, Nuala
O’Loan, is a personal friend whom I hold in the highest
regard—when we meet, we talk about our family, friends and
faith. Therefore, any remarks that I make about the extension of the
ombudsman’s powers are about the office and are not a criticism
of the post holder.
I
am not a criminal lawyer, but I learned an enormous amount from the
lengthy and controversial Committee sittings on the Criminal Justice
Act 2003, the Second Reading debate and the final stages of the
legislation’s progress through Parliament. At that time,
assurances were given regarding the end of the double jeopardy rule,
which has been a fundamental principle of British justice for hundreds
of years. The matter was highly controversial, and the wording was
extremely well
constructed.
The order
inserts into the 2003 Act new section 86A, which will, as the heading
indicates, allow investigation by the police ombudsman following
acquittal, but following acquittal for what? Members will, having done
their homework for this Committee—all of them are nodding in
agreement—have looked at the 2003 Act and will know that there
are qualifying offences of which a person must have been acquitted.
They are, as the Minister has said, serious offences including murder,
manslaughter, kidnapping, war crimes, terrorism and serious sexual
offences.
Will the
Minister tell us how many police officers in Northern Ireland have been
acquitted of one of those offences? I ask that because I know that the
police ombudsman’s office is under huge financial pressures
regarding the investigation of the cases that are already within its
remit. Is it a good use of resources to pursue the remarkably low, low,
low—how many “lows” can I get into
Hansard?—number of police officers who have committed a
qualifying offence in Northern Ireland? The number must be
extraordinarily low.
I
need the Minister to confirm the situation, as it is not explained in
the order. It is discussed in the explanatory memorandum and notes, and
again I commend those who draft the notes, which are much more
informative than the order itself. Will the Minister confirm whether
section 79 will apply now that the police ombudsman must seek the
permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland
to take cases forward? The legislation states that in the
“interests of justice” a person can be retried once
acquitted for any of the qualifying offences. I need an assurance that
the provision will still
apply.
The Minister
said something that struck me as a sweeping justification. He described
it as a mere oversight—I believe that that is what he said; it
will be in Hansard tomorrow—that the police ombudsman was
not written in when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was drafted. I find
it difficult to accept that that was a mere
oversight.
Given the
jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, which has 1.7 million people, and the
comparatively small number of police officers in Northern Ireland who
will
fit the bill—sorry about that—in terms of a qualifying
offence, such as the serious ones that I have listed, and who have been
acquitted, it strikes me as a complete oversight that the Independent
Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales does not have a
similar power. Surely it would be consistent for the IPCC to have such
a power. If it was a mere oversight, as the Minister has said, the 2003
Act should be amended so that the IPCC, as well as the Police Ombudsman
for Northern Ireland, has the power to review investigations, if new
and compelling evidence comes to
light.
I
will be astonished if the Minister can reply to all those remarks, but
I am sure that he can enlighten us on some of them. I have to indicate
to the Committee that there is no way in my wildest dreams that I would
consent to the order, and I urge Labour Members to think seriously
about agreeing to it. I would like to pick up on an intervention by the
hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood). I am
pleased that he made a contribution. It is always of interest to me
when Labour Members contribute to Northern Ireland business, and I am
delighted that, by and large, Conservative Members do, although I am
not a huge fan of that party. I am pleased that the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury is so diligent and does such a load of work and research
before coming into a Committee on Northern Ireland business, and that
he is always supported by Members of his party. I am embarrassed that I
am the only Northern Ireland MP here this afternoon. That is quite
regrettable—I must be mild and think carefully about my words.
It is disappointing in the extreme that there is no Democratic Unionist
party
representation.
In
response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, I was intrigued
by evidence given by the Association of Chief Police Officers yesterday
to the Home Affairs Committee, which demonstrates why we must be
careful about what we do this afternoon. The chief constable of
Cheshire, Mr. Peter Fahy, touched on the sensitive issue of
recruitment to the police in England and Wales. At the current rate, it
will take at least 17 years to achieve a service that is fully
representative of the racial make-up of modern Britain.
I shall quote from an article
in The Daily Telegraph today. I am not a regular reader, but the
article contains factual information:
“A lot of people feel
that”—
17
years—
“is too
long. Mr. Fahy, the chief constable of Cheshire, told MPs on
the home affairs select committee that Acpo wanted to start a debate on
the highly controversial issue...After the committee meeting,
Mr. Fahy said Acpo had sounded out Government and it had
been made clear that affirmative action involving quotas was
‘not politically
acceptable’”.
If
it is not politically acceptable to make the police service in England
and Wales have quotas on the grounds of ethnicity, why is it acceptable
this afternoon? According to the Government and Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein
has a new dispensation and has signed up to policing. We, collectively,
in this Committeeare going to countenance religious
discrimination in the recruitment of community support officers in
Northern Ireland—let us just think about what we are
doing.
3.41
pm
Adam
Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I should offer some reassurance
before seeking reassurance. I do not intend to speak for
long—I consider freedom of speech to be a right rather than a
continuous obligation. With the devolution and fragmentation of the
United Kingdom, there is a danger that regulations under various pieces
of legislation may be inconsistent, incompatible, and incongruous. I
wonder whether the draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern
Ireland) Order 2007 is another example of that incongruity and
inconsistency.
Can
the Minister assist by offering the Committee some reassurance and
stating how these miscellaneous regulations for Northern Ireland differ
from, or are compatible with, the corresponding regulations under the
other laws of Great Britain? Considering the previous contributions,
will he refer particularly to the ombudsman under article 11 and to the
PCSOs under various articles and with reference to schedule 5? What are
the key differences between these regulations and the regulations that
apply to the rest of the United
Kingdom?
3.42
pm
Paul
Goggins:
Mr. Weir, I shall attempt to deal as
effectively as I can with the points that have been raised. The hon.
Member for Tewkesbury, in his normal, thoughtful way, put his finger on
a number of issues, and I shall try to respond. He is right, it is a
sensitive time, not least because of the recent publication of the
McCord report, which highlights the fact that a small number of police
officers had behaved in an unacceptable way. It is important to
acknowledge what the ombudsman herself acknowledged, that under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the guidance that is
now in place, such circumstances could not occur under the current
provisions for the Police Service of Northern
Ireland.
It is also
important to acknowledge that although a small number of officers
behaved in an unacceptable way, a great many officers do a very
important job in Northern Ireland in gathering human intelligence,
which saves lives day in and day out across all communities. I pay
tribute to the officers who do that difficult work, because it is
important that they continue to do so. The McCord report made several
recommendations, which the Chief Constable has already said that he has
accepted. He will action those recommendations, including the
reinvestigation of a number of potential
offences.
In response
to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the double jeopardy rule,
it applies in exactly the same way in Northern Ireland as it does in
the rest of the United Kingdom; the difference is that in England and
Wales we do not have a police ombudsman as they do in Northern Ireland.
It would be for the ombudsman to reinvestigate cases in relation to
police officers rather than for the Chief Constable to carry out those
reinvestigations, which is why we need to extend the powers to her.
However, the rules, the system, and the provisions of the well-thumbed
copy of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 from which the hon. Member for
North Down quoted, all apply to Northern Ireland in absolutely the same
way as they do elsewhere.
All hon. Members, with the
exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, spoke about 50:50, which I
acknowledge is controversial. It is not that people are being turned
down for being of other religions and backgrounds; it is that all those
from diverse religious backgrounds come within the other 50 per cent.
that is not Catholic. They are not being turned down—quite the
reverse. A great deal of work is done to encourage people from
different communities to come
forward.
One of the
striking aspects of Northern Ireland society today is its increasing
diversity. It is important that people from different backgrounds come
forward to offer themselves as police officers and other members of the
police service. It is not that people are being turned down, to use the
hon. Gentleman’s words, because they are Jewish or come from
other backgrounds. They can apply and be assessed, but they come within
the other 50 per
cent.
Mr.
Robertson:
If they apply, go through the interview
procedure and are suitable to be appointed, why are they not then
appointed?
Paul
Goggins:
They might not be appointed because of the demand
for places. We should all rejoice in the fact that the number of people
from all communities applying to join the PSNI is very large and
growing all the time. That is to be welcomed. I listened carefully to
the hon. Gentleman, and he more or less implied that it was because
people were Jewish that they could not get into the
PSNI.
Mr.
Robertson:
I did not say
Jewish.
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of
religions. That is not the case. The point is simply that they have to
go through the other 50 per cent. I realise that there are hon. Members
on this Committee whom I could not persuade, even on my best day, in
relation to 50:50, but none the less I think that my position is
entirely defensible, on the facts as much as anything
else.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister for displaying
his usual courtesy in giving way, but I shall try another point. If the
recruitment process is fair and defensible, and if the IRA was genuine
in its statement last month that it will support the police, why do we
need a 50:50 policy? There can be no reason for it
now.
Paul
Goggins:
I say again, as I said in response to earlier
interventions, that I rejoice in the Sinn Fein ard fheis’s
decision and the statements that Gerry Adams and others have made
since. They mark a tremendous step forward, and I think that they will
lead to the restoration of devolved Government in a few weeks’
time. We will all welcome that, and I hope that it will lead to a
greater willingness in the Catholic community to apply for positions in
the police service, whether as police officers or as police community
support officers. However, it is important to acknowledge that there is
still some way to go, not just in people’s willingness to come
forward, but in the level of representation in the police service. If
we were to remove 50:50, maybe
people would apply from all sectors of the community, but we would not
reach 30 per cent. representation by 2010, to which we are committed
and which was recommended by Patten and the
commission.
Paul
Goggins:
Because the numbers would not increase
sufficiently quickly to get us to 30 per cent. The maths do not work
out; it is as simple as that. That is why we must keep the 50:50
provisions in place. Of course people from all communities should and
will come forward to join the PSNI. When we get to 2010-11 and have
reached 30 per cent. Catholic representation, a natural process will
occur, and we should see that level sustained, if not increased, in
future. Nature will take its course, but if we stop it now, we will not
reach the 30 per cent. level that we need and want to reach by 2010. It
is important to reach that
level.
We welcome all
the steps and developments and the greater willingness to participate.
As the hon. Member for North Down has pointed out, it was indeed fear
and intimidation that influenced the minds of people who would not
apply. That is reducing, which is welcome—hopefully it will
disappear—but we will not reach 30 per cent. by 2010 unless we
keep the provisions in
place.
I shall make
some progress, because 50:50 will come up
again.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minster has said that 50:50 recruitment
is—I quote directly—“defensible on the
facts”. On recruitment from the many ethnic minorities in
Northern Ireland, how many members of any ethnic minority are currently
represented in the
PSNI?
Paul
Goggins:
The numbers are small, but I will give them to
the hon. Lady. The representation of ethnic minority people of working
age is 0.48 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland;
representation in PSNI is 0.3 per cent. The numbers are small and, as I
said a few moments ago, in future society in Northern Ireland will be
increasingly diverse. Last week at the conference, the deputy chairman
of the Policing Board said that we are moving from policing a divided
society to policing a diverse society. That is a profound point, and
that diversity will need to be reflected in the make-up of the
PSNI.
The
hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Montgomeryshire have mentioned the
need for adequate training, with which I entirely agree. I confirm that
a training needs analysis is ongoing, and PSNI will learn from the
experience of England and Wales.
I say to the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury that there are no immediate plans to reduce current numbers
of police officers in Northern Ireland, which are at about 7,500. There
will certainly not be a trade off between PCSOs and police officers.
The 400 police officers provided by the first phase of recruitment are
additional to the 7,500 officers in Northern
Ireland.
The hon. Member for
Montgomeryshire welcomed a number of the measures that we are
introducing—he left it late to do so, but, nevertheless, I
welcome that. He made a number of points about the way in which we are
debating this measure, as did the hon. Member for North Down. The
Government’s commitment stands, and following devolution we will
return to that issue and examine what can be done to improve scrutiny
procedures. I accept some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has
made, and the important first step along that road is to restore
devolution on 26 March. I am sure that the whole Committee
supports that, as it is an essential first step in introducing better,
more accountable legislation and scrutiny of legislation in Northern
Ireland.
The hon.
Gentleman has asked about 50:50 recruitment, and I have already covered
some aspects of that issue. If we attain the 30 per cent. level by
2010, it should be self-sustaining when it is supported by all
communities. He also asked about the training of PCSOs and whether
particular attention would be given to the need to train them in how to
deal with young people, which will absolutely be the case. Indeed, he
will see from schedule 5 that a number of the powers that we intend to
introduce—for example, the provision on the confiscation of
alcohol—relate specifically to young people. It is important
that PCSOs in Northern Ireland help to deal with the issue of social
disorder and with young people from across the communities by building
relationships with them. That will be an important aspect of the
training.
Six out of
the 17 powers listed in schedule 5 have been selected on the advice of
the Chief Constable. Those powers will be introduced in ways that
reflect the level of training received by PCSOs and that will have
maximum effectiveness and impact on the ground. Out of the 17 powers
listed, I confirm that the implementation of other powers that will not
be introduced immediately must be approved by Ministers. It is right to
say that we need clarity about those powers, so that people in local
communities understand what they
are.
Lembit
Öpik:
Will the Minister confirm for the record that
no community support officer will be able to exercise those powers
without going through training and demonstrating an understanding of
how such powers should be applied, once they are rolled
out?
Paul
Goggins:
I can confirm that. Indeed, in so far as PCSOs
exercise police powers, they must do so in accordance with the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. PCSOs are also held
accountable through the management structure of the police and are
ultimately accountable to the ombudsman as part of existing scrutiny
arrangements in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman made a
number of points about staff custody officers. National occupational
standards relate to staff custody officers, and he is right to say that
they must demonstrate fairness in their work. They must be
accountable under PACE through management structures, and to the
ombudsman.
Clearly, we have much to learn
about the role and function of staff custody officers, which is why we
want to wait for the pilots that the Home Office is conducting in nine
police forces. They are important, and we want to see the assessment
before recruiting, training and deploying staff custody officers.
However, they will play an important role in
future.
The hon.
Member for North Down always speaks with authority and passion on these
matters, and I pay tribute to her, although we occasionally end up
disagreeing on 50:50 and so on. As she said, the powers that we are
debating are important. She is unhappy that we are debating them in the
draft order, but that does not detract from the importance of the
issues: double jeopardy changes, police community support officers and
so on.
The hon. Lady
asked the reason for the format. Some legislation that we have debated
in the past few months has been urgent—for example, emergency
legislation arising from the St. Andrews discussions, and the need to
advance devolution. Legislation on justice and security covers the
minimum powers required when part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000
disappears at the end of July. The policing matters that we are
discussing concern normal, everyday policing for the most part, so they
are different, but the hon. Lady’s comments are on the
record.
I have seen
the Home Office’s evaluation of PCSOs, and it is important to
say that it is early days in England and Wales. Crime has fallen, but
the extent to which that is due to the presence and intervention of
PCSOs is a matter of speculation. However, a survey on Merseyside after
the introduction of PCSOs showed that the local population had greater
confidence—18 per cent. higher than in other areas of
the country— and that antisocial behaviour had fallen by 40 per
cent. and crime by 30 per cent. My constituency will have 29
PCSOs out and about in the community from next month. They will make a
real difference, and I hope that a similar difference will be seen in
Northern
Ireland.
PCSOs are not
a cheap option. I cannot give chapter and verse on pay and conditions,
because we are not about to have PCSOs in Northern Ireland. It will be
another year before they are there, but they will be properly paid for
the job that they do and the responsibilities that they carry. They
will be in addition to police officers, and they will be full-time,
properly trained
professionals.
In
terms of 50:50, the 8.3 per cent. Catholic representation that Patten
found has risen to 21.4 per cent. and will rise to 30 per cent. by
2010. The Government must pursue
that.
The hon. Lady
referred to special policing skills. The age profile of the modern
Police Service of Northern Ireland is rather young, and it is a great
delight for me to take part in a graduation ceremony of new recruits.
It is great to see young people from all communities in Northern
Ireland committed to policing. However, in time, they will mature into
police officers of all ranks who can deploy their commitment and skills
to full effect in the communities that they serve, but there is a gap
at the moment. The order includes a power that was in the 2003
legislation, but lapsed. We need to put it back in place so that the
Chief Constable can have the right sort of officers at his
disposal.
I concur absolutely with
everything that the hon. Lady said about the importance of the
ombudsman’s office and the integrity of the holder of that
office. She does a very important job extremely well. The simple fact
is that in Northern Ireland nobody could reinvestigate a police officer
who had previously been acquitted of a serious offence if there was new
and compelling evidence. I cannot give an accurate figure, but the hon.
Lady is right to say that few, if any, police officers, have been
acquitted of those kinds of offences when new evidence may occur. This
is not just a retrospective issue; this is a power for the future too.
In the odd instance where a police officer is acquitted when there is
new evidence, it is important that we have a system in place that can
reinvestigate that offence. The role of the ombudsman is different from
that of the independent police complaints body in England. It operates
in a different way with different
powers.
The hon.
Member for Windsor asked me to highlight a number of the differences.
Again, I am grateful to him for that. The main purpose of the order is
to bring Northern Ireland more into line with England and Wales and the
powers that operate here. There are some differences, though. Article
12 deals with road closure powers and article 13 deals with the seizure
of documents. Those are in addition to the powers that the police would
have under PACE in England and Wales and they reflect the fact that,
although Northern Ireland has made massive progress, there is still a
threat, particularly from dissident republicans, that needs to be dealt
with. These powers will enable the police to do that. Obviously the
powers in relation to the ombudsman are different, because we do not
have an ombudsman, although the powers are the same as those in the
Criminal Justice Act
2003.
Adam
Afriyie:
Could the Minister say a few words about PCSOs
and the difference in the powers that they would have in Northern
Ireland compared with in Great
Britain?
Paul
Goggins:
The 17 powers that are set out in schedule 5 are
the whole range of powers that PCSOs can have in England and Wales. The
rate at which those powers are rolled out to PCSOs and whether PCSOs
have all or only some of them are matters for further reflection in the
Home Office. Ultimately, some of that will depend on decisions of
particular chief constables. In particular, the question of whether
there is a power to detain for up to 30 minutes is an issue on which
the Home Office is in discussion with the Association of Chief Police
Officers and the police authorities. We are not now proposing to
commence those powers of detention immediately. We will wait to see
what conclusions the Home Office comes to. We intend to introduce six
of those powers. Any of the other powers that come in will have to come
in with ministerial approval. The broad set of powers is the same as
for elsewhere.
My
final point relates to something to which the hon. Member for North
Down drew our attention: the comments of Peter Fahy, the chief
constable of Cheshire, in his evidence yesterday. Peter Fahy was one of
the chief constables who was in Belfast last weekfor the
international policing conference. Whatever remarks he made yesterday,
last week, like so many
chief constables from England and Wales, Miami, Los Angeles and many
other parts of the world, he concluded that the change in policing in
Northern Ireland in recent years has been impressive and is reaching
out to communities in a way that inspires confidence. We can all
celebrate that. The powers in this order will help the police to do
their job even more
effectively.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes
4.
Division
No.
1
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Policing (Miscellaneous
Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
Committee
rose at five minutes past Four
o’clock.
