Clause
34
Code:
effect
Mr.
Robertson:
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
clause 34, page 23, line 8, at
end insert
‘, but all
breaches of the code shall subject the police officer to disciplinary
procedures.’.
I
shall not disappoint you this time, Sir Nicholas. Having examined the
Bill more closely, I realised that it was not necessary to move the
previous
amendment.
Clause
34(1) refers to the effect of the code and
states:
“A
failure by a police officer to comply with a provision of a code shall
not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil
proceedings.”
My
amendment is designed to give us the facility to discuss why that
subsection is in the Bill and what the Minister envisages would happen
if a police officer did not comply with the code, which has been
compiled by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of
Parliament.
Paul
Goggins:
I am happy to try to clarify the powers in the
clause and explain what would happen if we adopted the
amendment.
The hon.
Gentleman’s amendment would mean that any breach of the code
would automatically result in disciplinary action against the officer
who had transgressed it. All Committee members would expect that most
breaches of the code—certainly serious ones—would result
in disciplinary action under the direction of the Chief
Constable.
We need to
bear in mind, however, that in somerare situations a very
minor breach of the code by experienced officers in difficult
situations may lead the Chief Constable to conclude that it is not
necessary for that officer to face disciplinary action. It is important
that experienced officers doing their job in good faith and who may make
a minor breach of the code can know confidently that they will get the
support of their Chief Constable. We do not want minor transgressions
to lead automatically to such police officers having their reputations
tarnished. I remind the Committee that the issue could be subject to an
investigation by the police ombudsman; if there were a complaint about
the decision not to take disciplinary action, that could be
investigated by the ombudsman. I hope that that satisfies the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister forthat
explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
34 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4 agreed
to.
Clause 38
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
39
Review
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
3.15
pm
Mark
Durkan:
Given that, in our earlier exchanges, we touched
on the possible role of the independent assessor, it is important that
we test a number of points on clause 39. The clause provides for the
Secretary of State to appoint a person to review the powers as an
independent assessor. That assessor will have limited powers to oversee
how the Army investigates complaints and will not have any powers to
investigate complaints. That is no substitute for the office of the
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland being able to investigate the
Army when it plays a supporting role for policing. The reviewer will
come each year, and the British Army is obliged only to give such
information and documents as the independent assessor might reasonably
require. By contrast, the police ombudsman has the power in the conduct
of her duties to get any document that she needs.
Given that the Minister
explained earlier and that it is pretty clear in the Bill that the Army
does not have to keep any records of what it does or of its
justification for it in the exercise of a lot of its powers, it is hard
to know what the independent assessor will assess. We are told that the
annual review of how the powers work will be the subject of a robust or
significant report to the Secretary of State, and so the question
arises of how there is to be an independent review that does not
require renewal by Parliament if there are no records in relation to
the Army.
The
Committee earlier dealt with clause 36, which requires the Chief
Constable to make records of the use of emergency powers. Of course,
that does not apply to the Army. It does not have to keep any records.
It is hard to see how the role of the independent assessor is in any
way significant in relation to the Army’s use of the
powers.
Let us remember that the Bill
institutionalises emergency powers for the British
Army—emergency powers that used to have to be renewed annually
in the heat of the troubles and in the face of all sorts of violence,
difficulty and turmoil. Now, in a morebenign situation, they
are being institutionalised as permanent. Will the Minister give us a
clear assurance that the references throughout the legislation to Her
Majesty’s forces will apply only to the Regular Army and not to
MI5 or MI6, for instance?
Paul
Goggins:
The Committee needs to bear in mind when
considering the clause the exceptional and limited role that the Army
will play in Northern Ireland beyond the summer of this year. My hon.
Friend asked about the role of the reviewer. The reviewer will be asked
to respond to three specific areas. First, he will be asked to review
the operation of sections 20 to 31, which are the measures that we
debated this afternoon. What the reviewer has to say about that will
play an important part in the Secretary of State’s judgment on
whether to repeal any of the powers. The Secretary of State will
consider other matters, too, but the reviewer’s report will be
essential in the consideration of whether to appeal any of the
powers.
The second
role of the reviewer relates to military matters. The clause makes it
mandatory on the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to ensure
that he passes over to the reviewer all information relating to the
investigation of, and response to, complaints so that the reviewer can
be satisfied that the complaints have been properly and adequately
dealt with. I expect that those complaints would be few in number by
virtue of the fact that the military plays a rare role in Northern
Ireland at present. I confirm that the only personnel who would be
subject to that would be those who were under the command of the
General Officer Commanding Northern
Ireland.
There is a
third category of event or circumstance that the reviewer may consider,
and that is any specific matter that the Secretary of State asks the
reviewer to consider that is not already covered in the first two
remits that I have outlined. For example, if the Secretary of State
were concerned about the use of baton rounds in a public order
scenario, he could ask the reviewer to undertake a piece of analysis
and to report back to him. That is a limited role for the reviewer, but
it is important both in underpinning public confidence and the
confidence of the House in relation to the measures and in informing
the Secretary of State and helping him to reach a judgment about when
the right time might come to repeal some of the powers.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 39
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
40
Duration
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause
5—Duration of sections 20 to 39—
‘(1) Sections 20 to 39 shall expire at the
end of the period of12 months beginning with the day on which
this Act is passed.
(2) The
Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory
instrument—
(a) repeal
sections 20 to 39; or
(b)
provide that those sections are not to expire at the time when they
would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an
order under this subsection but are to continue in force after that
time for a period not exceeding 12
months.
(3) No order may be
made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before
Parliament and approved by a resolution of each
House.’.
Mr.
Reid:
I wish to speak to the new clause that stands in my
name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. Its
effect would be that the powers that we have just debated in clauses 20
to 39 would have to be renewed annually. On Second Reading, we asked
the Minister how long he envisaged that the powers in those clauses
would be in place; we would like to see a situation in which such
powers were no longer necessary in Northern Ireland. Although clause 40
provides for the Secretary of State to repeal sections 20 to 39, there
is no provision for Parliament to take stock of whether the powers are
still necessary or to debate how they are being used. The clause allows
the Secretary of State rather than Parliament to decide when such a
debate might take place, and we believe that it is important that
Parliament should have an annual debate.
Clause 39 very helpfully
requires a reviewer to produce a report on the operation of the powers,
but makes no automatic provision for Parliament to consider the
reviewer’s findings. It would be useful, given the nature of the
powers, for Parliament to discuss how they are being used and to take
account of the views expressed by the reviewer. New clause 5 is,
therefore, a simple repeal and renewal clause. It states that the
provisions of sections 20 to 39 should lapse at the end of a 12-month
period, but should be ableto be renewed by statutory
instrument for a further12 months. That is similar to
mechanisms thatare already in place—for example, the
arms decommissioning schemes in Northern Ireland and control orders in
the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr.
Robertson:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the provision
could be extended for another 12 months, but no longer than
that?
Mr.
Reid:
No, the intention is that it could be extended for
12 months and then for a further 12 months after
that.
Mr.
Robertson:
But no
further?
Mr.
Robertson:
Perhaps I did not explain myself properly.
Would there be only one further period, or could it be repeatedly
extended?
Mr.
Reid:
The intention is that it could be repeatedly
extended at 12-month intervals.
Paul
Goggins:
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to
give the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny to these important and
significant powers. However, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that
is implied in his amendment is unnecessary and I shall explain
why.
We have been
through an extensive process in considering the powers in part 17 of
the Terrorism Act 2000, many of which are being repealed and not being
replaced. However, we are replacing those that we regard as necessary
to deal with the ongoing situation and the risks that may arise as a
result of it. We have already reduced to a minimum the powers in the
Bill.
We all look
forward to the day when the situation in Northern Ireland is as secure
as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom and we work to that end, but
at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, we have to prepare on
the basis that an additional risk of serious public disorder exists in
Northern Ireland. None of us wants it, but what happened at Whiterock
shows that such events may still take place. It is a matter of record
that, since last summer, the activities of dissident republican groups
have caused about £25 million-worth of criminal damage. There is
still a residual dissident threat and a threat of paramilitaries
feeding into and off organised
crime.
The remaining
threat must be taken seriously and it may remain for a considerable
time. All of us—the police, politicians and
communities—do what we can to counter that threat and to build
the conditions for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, but it is
likely that these powers will be needed for some time. I will come
later to the accountability
mechanisms.
I will
repeat what I said in an earlier debate about the role of the
independent reviewer. He will report to the Secretary of State on the
working of the new powers and the Secretary of State must then place
his report before Parliament on an annual basis. There will be no
question of the Secretary of State making secret judgments that no one
knows about; the report will have to be placed before Parliament and on
the record. Members of the House will be able to scrutinise the report
and to ask questions about it. That is a sufficient and proportionate
level of accountability; it is not necessary to return to the House
every year to renew the powers in the
clause.
Mr.
Reid:
I am not convinced by the Minister’s
argument, but I will reflect on it and perhaps return to the issue at a
later stage.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 40
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
3.30
pm
Clause
41
Interpretation
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lady
Hermon:
You are, as ever, Sir Nicholas, very gracious in
allowing hon. Members to participate in stand part debates. Regarding
the interpretation section in clause 41, and picking up on the
Minister’s point about records, I am unhappy that this is a
limited clause. Earlier on in our discussion on clauses 26 and 27, it
was brought to the Committee’s attention that members of Her
Majesty’s forces could seize
documents or records during a search. However, the definition and
interpretation in clause 41 are unclear as to whether a record includes
computer documents. That was alluded to by the Minister in response to
an intervention.
It
would be helpful if “record” were defined in the
interpretation, particularly in light of clause 27, which we did not
discuss. If Committee members turn to that clause, they will see that
multiple use of the word “record” creates confusion. Not
only does clause 27(1) state that there is a document or record, but
clause 27(1)(b) states that whoever examines it also has to make a
written record of the document or record.
Clause 27(2) requires that the
record describe all sorts of things. We have no idea, apart from the
sense of the clause, which record we are talking about. Therefore, it
is constructive to suggest to the Minister and his valiant
assistants—who do listen to helpful suggestions in
Committee—that, rather than clause 41 standing part unamended,
it would be beneficial to include “record” as
defined.
Paul
Goggins:
In order not to sound like a broken record, I
hope it will be helpful to the hon. Lady if I take that suggestion away
further to examine it. I noticed that “hovercraft” is
included in the definition of “vehicle”, but not in the
provisions on stop and question. I will also take that away and think
about it, and I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim will be
happy if I do
so.
Mr.
Bone:
There also seems to be an error in the definition of
“vehicle” not including
car.
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman has once again been persistent
and constructive in his interventions. We will look at that. I think
that we are getting another “vehicle” coming any time
soon.
Lembit
Öpik:
Does the definition of
“aircraft” include hot air balloons and
gliders?
Paul
Goggins:
My hon. Friends were suggesting that, in fact, we
might have a bandwagon heading our way. I hope that it is sufficient
assurance for the hon. Member for North Down that we will look at the
word “record” and whether its definition needs to be set
out.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 41
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 42
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
