Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

House of Commons, 7 May 1998.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE AUTHORITY

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'. No. 40, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'. Government amendments Nos. 4 and 28 to 31.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

For ease of reference I propose to deal first with Government amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31, then I shall deal with amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The House will be aware that the word civilian is used to describe staff who are employed in support of the police. The term currently used in the Bill is correct, and it is used for the same purpose in the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1980, but in view of the particular significance of language in Northern Ireland I accept that further clarification might be desirable. The matter was raised on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, column 52, by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who pointed out that the clause as drafted implies that members of the police force and traffic wardens are not civilians. That is clearly not the case. Although I believe that most people in Northern Ireland will recognise the distinction that use of the term civilian seeks to make, there is scope for further clarification. Having considered the hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee and consulted the parliamentary draftsman, I have concluded that the phrase "police service staff' more accurately reflects the situation. It is important that everyone realises that all those who work in the Northern Ireland police service, both Royal Ulster Constabulary officers and the staff who assist them, are civilians. The amendments that I have tabled simply seek to reinforce that point, and I commend them to the House. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would change the name of the new single service that the Bill creates to the Northern Ireland Police Department. The amendments were originally tabled for consideration in Committee by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who usually speaks for his party on Northern Ireland issues. We send our best wishes to him after his rather serious accident. We know that he is doing his best to get well enough to return to the House and make his contribution and that he regrets having missed the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will do full justice to the argument that he would have advanced. Although the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, his amendments were moved and fully discussed on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, columns 90-100. They were rejected when the Committee divided. When I addressed the Committee on the matter, I reported that I had received strong representations from many quarters in Northern Ireland about the importance of introducing a service ethos into the police. I remind the House that the Police Authority and the police staff associations were particularly keen to see the word service appear in the Bill. I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will appreciate that the detail of language is particularly important in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will understand, therefore, when I again say that I am not prepared to accept the amendments. Perhaps that is a little presumptuous as I have not yet heard his eloquent argument in support of them, but the matter was fully considered in Committee. I emphasise that the Police Authority and the bodies that represent police interests in Northern Ireland were keen for the concept of service to be written into the Bill. To recap, both sets of amendments deal with details of language. The time that we have spent on them in the House and in Committee testifies to the importance of the terms used in policing in Northern Ireland. The aim of the Government in introducing the changes that I have just described in amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31 and in resisting amendments Nos. 39 and 40 is to emphasise that the RUC and those who work alongside it together constitute a civilian organisation, which continues to serve the community in Northern Ireland efficiently and effectively.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is remarkable to hear the response to the amendments before the argument in support of them has been presented. Many right hon. and hon. Members want to be on their planes and trains fairly early tonight, so I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to the amendments in my name. I thank the Minister for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I can report is making a slow and painful recovery. I shall pass on the Minister's remarks. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 may seem cosmetic to many people—particularly those on mainland Britain. I take the Minister's point about the use of language in Northern Ireland: it is very important. It is difficult for people who do not have Northern Ireland connections to understand how important a single word can be when relaying a particular message. 5.30 pm This Bill establishes a new era of policing in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats and their sister party in Northern Ireland believe that every attempt should be made to get the substance and the symbolism right. Symbolism is often as important as substance in terms of conveying the correct message. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said that a large section of the community has little faith in the current policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that that was not a criticism of RUC officers or police personnel, but a statement of fact. In reality, every police force in the United Kingdom—I do not care whether it is the Metropolitan police or the police force in North Yorkshire—has some concerns and some officers who do not attain the expected standards. My hon. Friend said that merely changing the name of, or reforming, or even revolutionising the RUC would not lead those who have no faith in that organisation suddenly to change their view. The Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, made that point very effectively in an important article that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 30 April. He said: To be properly effective it must be conducted as a truly collaborative effort between police and the communities they exist to serve rather than being simplistically considered as something which a provider 'delivers' to a consumer. The argument about the use of the word service is summed up by Ronnie Flanagan's comments: the police do not simply provide a service to the consumer but are integral to the future of Northern Ireland. It will be a small, but we believe significant, step to change the name from service to department. The Bill contains several vital steps, but that is important also. The new title for the police service in Northern Ireland is one of the most important symbolic steps that we can take. That is why we hope the Minister will reconsider, even at this late stage. We believe that the Northern Ireland Police Service—which will be known as NIPS—is the wrong title and will send the wrong message. The assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), laughs about that. The Minister must recognise that that abbreviation is asking for trouble. NIPS has dubious overtones which will cause, at best, mirth and derision and, at worst, offence. The abbreviation is also the same as that of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which—rightly or wrongly—has a negative association with the past troubles in Northern Ireland. We propose to create an inclusive Northern Ireland police department, the NIPD. That title has no negative connotations, a very modern ring and perhaps a cross-Atlantic theme. The Government have done much to create a new agenda for Northern Ireland and policing is at its heart; they must not, for the sake of such a small concession, give the new police arrangements a title that may be the object of derogatory comment and association. We ask the Minister to reconsider.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Government's amendments. It is crucial that the term civilian is defined properly—especially in view of what has happened in the north of Ireland in the past and what we hope may happen there in the future. A certain ethos underlines the new agreement that is now known as the Good Friday agreement. That ethos is based on agreement and does not derive in any sense from force, whether legitimate or paramilitary. For that reason, I believed in Committee—as I do now—that it is right to make that distinction and to define the police service as being part of civilian life. I suppose that one could be churlish and argue about the name. I am particularly attracted to the title Northern Ireland Police Service. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life and I have never heard the Northern Ireland Prison Service referred to as NIPS—although I have heard it called many things, some of which I would not repeat in the Chamber. I believe that the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be rather confusing. They would create a Northern Ireland Police Department, so the Bill would refer to that as well as a Northern Ireland Police Service and a Northern Ireland police force. I believe that we should try to ensure that the term service and its meaning are the overriding factors not just in the ethos of policing but in the way in which the police service reflects what I believe will be a new attitude in all sections of the Northern Ireland community. The Bill does not go as far as I would like—but I did not think it would. With some confidence, I anticipate that, as we proceed down the road to agreement, which is what we shall do, and to peace, which is what we shall certainly achieve, the attitude within the community, the police service and the administration of the police service will move inexorably and consistently towards the concept of service as opposed to the concept of force. For that reason, I believe that the Government's amendments are very welcome.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has noticed that the term police force is used in the Bill. Shall we argue about mere names or shall we go to the heart of the issue: the attempt in this Bill to do away with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? That is the real push behind the Bill and that is why it is before the House. We have an agreement the hon. Gentleman says will bring peace. I do not know how releasing, after 24 months, people who were sentenced to two, three or four life sentences and allowing them to keep their arms will bring peace. That seems a strange way of achieving it. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think that the Government are being dishonest. They are not telling the people that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being axed and will be replaced by the Northern Ireland Police Service. That is the thrust of the Bill, and that view was expressed from these Benches last time we discussed the matter. Unlike other hon. Members, I do not have to catch a plane tonight. I was told that consideration would continue all night, so I made the consequent arrangements. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who served on the Committee. He had to take an early flight back to Northern Ireland as every later flight is booked—and I can understand why. Many people have asked me why I am here today. I am doing what I was sent to do: to oppose the Bill. I shall do that tonight.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) uses the word oppose, but that is nothing new. Many people believe that that is the way he approaches any elements of progress that appear on the horizon and on which the majority are agreed. That is his democratic right, but there is nothing new in his advising that that is his function this evening. The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to the use of the term police force. All of us who are associated with a police service would like the word force to be removed, but it occurs throughout a range of legislation and removing it would require much primary legislation. The import of the Bill is that throughout the United Kingdom what in the past has been known as a police force has now become accepted as a police service. The amendments ensure that the Bill goes a little further in recognising the concept of the civilian element of the police service in its totality, including those who serve as constables and those who act in support of them. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the Government's intention about the future of the RUC.I hope that he will accept it when I say that the RUC will remain. It will not be abolished. As recently as yesterday, the Prime Minister made that commitment yet again. The RUC will continue to serve all the people of Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

What will the commission do? Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to comment, but he is trying to extend the debate. He may have an opportunity to speak again on later groups of amendments. We can have a reasoned debate, but I shall not respond to shouted interventions. That may be how the hon. Gentleman wishes to operate as a democrat in Northern Ireland, but it is not the custom or the best manners that are expected in this House. The remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) were welcome. I recognise his acceptance of the Government amendments although he does not believe that they go far enough. However, I am used to that from the hon. Gentleman. When I hear him say that he totally accepts everything that has been said, it will be a major achievement. Perhaps we are only a short way from that on this occasion. That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 seek to change service to department. In Scotland, a nip is a whisky. It does not have a pejorative sense there and, because of the Scots-Irish connection, in some parts of Northern Ireland it may be used in the same way, so the acronym NIPS would not be viewed so critically. The essential point is that it is wrong that those who serve as constables and those who work in support of RUC officers are seen to be different from a department. That is why we have included the word service in the generic title for all those who work in the RUC and in support of it. As I said in my opening remarks, it is because of representations received from those who represent the interests of the RUC, and because the Police Authority wants the word service and the concept of it in the Bill, that we developed the matter in this way. On that basis, I hope that it will be a success. The matter was debated extensively in Committee. There was a Division and the amendment was comprehensively defeated. If it goes to a Division tonight I expect that it will be comprehensively defeated again.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time on one group of amendments on Report.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 20, after 'is', insert impartial.'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 15. Amendment No. 57, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 26 and insert 'may consult the Secretary of State over the plan and consider such amendments to that plan as the Secretary of State may suggest.'. Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 10, line 45 at end insert 'and shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan.'. Government amendments Nos. 20 to 24.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not fully understanding the rules of the House on Report. I shall take the matter up with my Chief Whip. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) for referring to him as the assistant Whip, when in fact he is the Deputy Chief Whip. No doubt he will be able to buy me a nip on the way home. Amendment No. 54 and the string of amendments taken with it are perhaps the most significant of those tabled today. It was interesting to read the Committee's proceedings during the first couple of days, when the need for the term "impartiality" was stressed by virtually every hon. Member. In fact, it became the key word in the Committee's early deliberations. There was, too, a consensus that we must never return to the abuses of the earlier Stormont regime, particularly the politicised policing. Again, the Committee appeared united on that. That is why impartiality must be the prime criterion for building confidence and judging the success or failure of the Bill. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) moved the amendment in Committee, and, to a degree, the Minister accepted the principle of impartiality. However, the Minister's response was that it would be difficult to test impartiality in the courts. He made exactly that point at column 46 of Hansard on 12 February 1998, when he said that the Government were dismissing the issue of impartiality because it would be difficult to enforce in the courts. That is the point of the amendment. The very basis of the Bill is that impartiality should be seen as its most important element, and that, if necessary, it should be tested in the courts. That, ultimately, is where any Bill is tested. Compared with the words "efficient" and "effective", the word "impartial" has much greater significance. It is possible to test effectiveness and efficiency in the courts, but not impartiality. The previous Government's White Paper, which was discussed extensively in Committee, went a long way to enshrining the view that legislation should require police officers to uphold the law impartially, and that that should be capable of being challenged, either by the new ombudsman or through the courts. I presume that, before that White Paper was produced, the previous Government sought a legal opinion on enshrining in law the requirement that an officer's conduct be impartial. The proposal was welcomed by the Police Authority and by almost all members of the Committee, but rejected by the Government on the basis of not principle but its enforceability in law. The Government are wrong. Impartiality may be a difficult term to frame in legislation, but it is surely one worthy of the Government's best efforts.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 60, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 19, but it is similar to an amendment to the clause which was discussed at length in Committee. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 all deal with financial matters relating to the funding of the police service through grants to the Police Authority, the keeping of proper accounts, and accountability to the Secretary of State and the public for the expenditure. The original amendment dealt with novel and contentious equipment. The Minister rejected that at the time on the ground of definition. The purchase of equipment, which we shall discuss later, and the reporting of the Chief Constable to the Police Authority are extremely important. Clause 17 gives the Police Authority responsibility for establishing an annual policing plan. Although the plan is originally provided in draft form by the Chief Constable, it goes to the Police Authority, which can either adopt it in the form in which it is submitted or amend it after consultation with the Chief Constable. Ultimately, however, the Police Authority takes ownership of the policing plan, and it then comes into the public domain and is transparent for the public to witness. The Committee debated clause 19 for four and a half hours, allowing half an hour's break for a vote. It was an incredibly long debate, mainly on clause stand part and the amendment in question, and throughout the Minister refused to give way. However, the Police Authority still feels strongly about that matter. Notwithstanding the contingencies that will have been appropriately built into the policing plan so that the Chief Constable's operational independence and ability to act quickly are not placed in jeopardy, the Police Authority feels that, if a Chief Constable seeks to change the plan during the year of its implementation, it is important that he consults the authority. After all, it will have endorsed, published and taken ownership of the plan. Amendment No. 60 deals with consultation during the plan's implementation. It seeks to insert in the Bill a requirement for the Chief Constable to say to the Police Authority, "Something extremely serious has happened; this is what I am doing." The Police Authority is then not only informed quickly but has the ability to consult. There may be disagreement, but ultimately we back the Chief Constable's right to make the final decision on operational matters. The authority is still concerned that decisions may be taken without reference to it, which places it in an invidious and difficult position in its relations with the public.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was a long and laborious exercise. The Minister probably hopes that we shall not have the same number or length of interchanges this evening. It would be churlish not to recognise that, despite their apparent intransigence in Committee, the Government have taken on board a considerable number of our proposals. When we contested the Bill in Committee, our intention was to ensure that the role of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was not diminished. Whatever our experiences before 1970 and subsequently—different people have different perspectives—0we were determined that there should never again be an open-ended arrangement whereby political control or influence could be exercised on the Royal Ulster Constabulary without proper scrutiny. We fought for no more and no less than that. At times, I may not have been as pleasant to the Minister as I might have been. On this occasion, I make amends—

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

Grovelling.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Grovelling, indeed. We now have a recognition of the Police Authority's role. This is where my little addendum comes in: I hope that the Minister will see the good sense of completing the job that he undertook in the wake of the Committee stage, and will recognise, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, that there is merit in giving the Police Authority the right to be consulted by the Chief Constable. Clause 19, which says: In discharging his functions, the Chief Constable has an obligation to have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17", should also say: and shall consult the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan. The amendment places no great burden on the Chief Constable. He is simply being asked to ensure that those who stand between him and the public at large—those who represent the public but have an interest in the RUC and its welfare—are kept informed. The amendment is small but significant, and would round off the efforts that the Minister and his Department have made to take on board the issues raised in Committee.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I want to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 60, without making a passing reference to amendment No. 59. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) reminded us that the longest single debate in Committee focused on clause 19. Amendment No. 60 differs from the controversial amendment proposed in Committee, but its underlying purpose is not dissimilar. Like amendment No. 81, it seeks to redress a perceived imbalance in the tripartite structure, and, in so doing, to enhance the role of the Police Authority. Hon. Members are aware that clause 19 provides, first and foremost, that The police force shall be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable and that the Chief Constable shall have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17. Conservative Members still have problems with the clause. We believe that the concept "shall have regard" is inadequate. The annual policing plan is the property of the Police Authority. It is one of the means—perhaps the main means—whereby people will judge whether the authority is successfully securing an efficient and effective police service in the Province. It is the Chief Constable's responsibility to deliver the policing plan. He puts into practice the authority's priorities, and seeks to achieve its performance targets and objectives. He must have operational independence in day-to-day policing, but he is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the authority's annual plan. In Committee, the Government accepted amendment No. 79, which was tabled by the Opposition. The Under-Secretary said: It recognises that the authority is keen to become more involved in strategic planning and accordingly requires the Chief Constable to take account of the objectives and priorities of the authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 224.] Amendment No. 60 would have a not dissimilar effect. The authority would have a consultative role as the strategy of the annual plan was implemented. The amendment is therefore consistent with the Government's thinking on other aspects of the Bill. 6 pm Whether or how the Chief Constable implements the annual plan is a matter of concern to the authority, and legitimately so. Without remotely compromising the Chief Constable's operational autonomy, the authority will want to discuss the implementation of its strategy, and any Chief Constable worth his salt will want to discuss with the authority how he is implementing the strategy. In Committee, we debated amendment No. 81 at great length—it annoyed and irritated Ministers somewhat. It required the Chief Constable to consult the authority if he deviated substantially from the annual policing plan. Ministers argued that, in those circumstances, the operational independence of the Chief Constable would be undermined. Amendment No. 60 would not do that, by any stretch of the imagination. It merely requires that the Chief Constable shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan. That is an entirely reasonable proposition. In Committee, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) expressed our fears when, with some hyperbole, he said: It seems that everything in the Bill is designed to derogate from the responsibility that the Police Authority should have. Its authority is being reduced and its powers handed directly to the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 247.] I emphasise that we are not trying to impinge on the operational independence of the Chief Constable, but operational responsibility must be exercised within parameters set by the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the authority. Each has a proper role to play. We argue that the Bill does not assign them their proper roles. The amendment would achieve a proper role for the authority, which would be consulted by the Chief Constable during the implementation of the annual strategy.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

From his reply to my previous speech, the Minister evidently thinks that there is some rule of the House under which English, Welsh or Scottish Members can make sedentary interventions, but that right is refused to Northern Ireland Members. I draw attention to something that has to do with this and all amendments. The Minister told the House: The proposals in the Bill are not designed to preclude discussion of policing in the talks. Indeed, the Government have given an undertaking that any agreement reached in the talks on the issues covered in the Bill will be taken on board during the passage of the Bill, if that is practicable. If not, they will be implemented at a later stage."—[Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 46.] The Minister well knows that a commission is recommended to be set in place to consider policing. Does he think that the people of Northern Ireland will listen to him, when he and the Prime Minister state categorically to one side of the community that there will always be a Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it will never be changed, but then say something, tongue in cheek, to the other side of the society, so that they can say, "Yes, there will be great changes, and the RUC will eventually be done away with"? Who are we to believe? We do not know what the commission will recommend. It may recommend things that are not before us tonight. In respect of the amendment, it will probably want to say something about police impartiality, and we do not know what will happen when it gives its decision. I agree with those who have said that people have a great fear that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, as civilians considering the police force, will not have proper authority. There have already been changes in the authority, which have set alarm bells off in certain sections of the community. The freedom of the Chief Constable to do his operational duty must not be impinged on, and the authority must be recognised and its place honoured. That is the force of the argument in the amendments.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal first with amendment No. 54, which was moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and then with Government amendments Nos. 3, 17 and 20. I shall then cover Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7; Government amendment No. 2; Government amendments Nos. 8 to 14; amendment No. 57, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16; amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss); Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23; and Government amendment No. 24. I have set out that structure because we are dealing with subsets of the same general issues, and I want to deal with the arguments in what I hope will be a logical manner. We had seven debates in Committee and discussed at length a number of amendments that were designed to ensure that the policing of Northern Ireland would be required by statute to be conducted impartially, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said. Some were Government amendments; they have been incorporated into the Bill. I rejected an amendment similar to amendment No. 54 because the term "impartiality" does not have meaning in statute and therefore adds no genuine safeguard to the fairness and even-handedness of policing in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 54 sets forth a similar provision: its inclusion could be held to fetter the discretion of a constable—the operational officer on the ground—in performing his duty. I believe that those objections remain valid. However, it was clear from the tone and the weight of the debate in Committee that there was still concern surrounding the issue, and I promised to reconsider it with a view to introducing further changes. I have considered the matter further and believe that I have found a formula that will avoid problems with the specific legal definition of the word "impartiality", but will ensure that statute clearly states that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. That is why I am introducing an amendment to clause 37—Government amendment No. 20—which will require the statement of policing principles issued by the Secretary of State under that clause to include within it the principle that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. I am also introducing Government amendments Nos. 3 and 17, which will require the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to have regard to that statement of principles. On 12 February, during the second sitting of the Committee—at columns 37 to 51—Government amendments were introduced, which made the Police Authority and the Chief Constable subject to section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That outlaws discrimination by either on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. I believe that those changes, combined with the Government amendments that I have just described, represent a robust framework for ensuring the impartial policing of Northern Ireland in the future. I commend those amendments to the House and ask hon. Members to reject amendment No. 54. I shall now deal with Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7. In Committee, there was considerable discussion of clause 10(2)—at column 206 of the seventh sitting. I explained at that time that the purpose of requiring the Chief Constable to send a draft of his estimates to the Secretary of State, as currently required by clause 10(2), was to ensure that the Government received the information necessary to proceed with planning for the next financial year in good time. I was conscious at that time that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland had some concerns that a formal requirement for the Chief Constable to send an estimate to the Secretary of State at such an early stage in the financial cycle, and simultaneously with his dispatch of an estimate to the Police Authority, undermined the Police Authority's role as the body primarily responsible for police finance. I understood that argument. My view is that the authority's position is effectively safeguarded by clause 10(1), which ensures that it is the authority, and the authority alone, which submits the final estimate to the Secretary of State for the overall funding of policing in Northern Ireland. I believe that the authority's strong representations are based on an unfounded premise, but I have taken them on board, together with the concerns that it has continued to raise in advance of Report stage, that the Bill could be represented by those hostile to it as undermining the authority's position in relation to the overall funding of policing in Northern Ireland. That point was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. I have, therefore, considered the matter further, and held consultations with the Police Authority. We are seeking to put in place other, agreed mechanisms for ensuring that the Secretary of State receives the information required for the Government financial cycle. The Police Authority is co-operating fully with us in constructing those mechanisms. That being the case, I am happy to remove from the Bill the requirement for the Chief Constable to send a copy of his estimates to the Secretary of State. I commend amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to the House. 6.15 pm I shall now deal with Government amendments No. 2 and 8 to 14. The House will be aware that the objective setting process has, ahead of the introduction of legislation, been operating successfully in Northern Ireland for the past two years. The practice has been that the Secretary of State, in establishing her policing objectives, also sets performance targets commensurate with those objectives. In the drafting of the Bill, the intention is that that practice will continue. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), said in Committee—in the fourth sitting on 24 February, at column 113—the practicalities of the process of objective setting are identical in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, the drafting of the legislation is different. That is because, in England and Wales the Home Secretary is dealing with 43 police authorities, and might wish to set different targets for different authorities. The Police Act 1996 allows the Home Secretary to direct police authorities to set performance targets. Because we have only one authority at present, the Northern Ireland legislation simply allows the Secretary of State to set performance targets in relation to her objectives. We had considerable discussion—

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not want to nit-pick with the Minister, but he said that we have one police authority at present. That phrase will be picked up and misunderstood. Will the Minister, at this early stage, clarify exactly what he means, or was that merely a slip of the tongue?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

It was not a slip of the tongue. We are consulting on the mechanisms dealing with this matter. I do not envisage there being more than one police authority in Northern Ireland, but if the democratic voice within Northern Ireland wanted a different mechanism, any Government would have to take that on board. I am not predicting that as a possibility or eventuality, because I do not see that. I was present last evening when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was talking to representatives of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The chairman of the Police Authority was also present. A clear commitment was given that the authority would continue to represent public opinion within Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will know that we are currently consulting on the way in which we should construct that authority and allow local communities to have greater interface with it. It is an important body and it welcomes discussion on those issues. Those are concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I pay tribute to the work done by the Police Authority, and I do not envisage radical change or even a measure of change in that regard in the future. As I have said, my comment was not a slip of the tongue, but we must consider that the public may demand a different approach. Any democratic body must take that into account.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I noted the phrase used by the Minister. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Department produced a paper on policing to be considered within the talks process. One of the options was a movement away from a unitary police authority system. That was presented to the talks as an option not by the Social Democratic and Labour party or by the Ulster Unionist party but by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has pre-empted decisions that might be made on the basis of a paper prepared for the Minister by his own Department?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I can see that the hon. Gentleman will not be fully happy with this debate. The point being made was that the chairman of the Police Authority asked about the future role of the authority, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear the importance of that authority as a body. We did not discuss the consultative document. I have set out my view of what might be the likely response. If that consultative process results in a significant body of opinion saying, "We want this handled in a different way," we must take account of that. It is fair and reasonable to say that, although we have put out a consultative document, that does not mean that every option within the document is likely to become a reality. Clearly, that could not be so. There could be one police authority or there could be some other structure. I have said that I do not believe that there is likely to be more than one structure, but, as a democrat, I believe that if that is what people want, we must respond in a structured way. We were dealing with a slightly different issue. As I have said, my use of the phrase "at present" was a specific statement, not a slip of the tongue. The fact that hon. Members have questioned me on that shows that they are listening to the debate. That is always helpful. Every word is being listened to and we must be careful what we say. We were talking about performance targets and the setting of objectives. We had considerable debate on that in Committee, and it would not be appropriate to re-run that debate now. However, in this instance there were subsequent consultations with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and he convinced me and my officials that there would be presentational advantages in having our own legislation in Northern Ireland, reflecting as closely as possible the legislation in England and Wales. Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 will clearly demonstrate that our objective setting process and that in England and Wales are very similar. I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for his help in clarifying that specific point. I am convinced that the amendments will clarify the intention of the provisions, so I am sure that they will improve the legislation. In discussing the changes, I should emphasise that I believe that establishment of key performance targets is a vital tool, which both the authority and the Secretary of State must have at their disposal. I do not think that there is any dissent from that belief, as the principle is good and clear. I therefore commend Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 to the House. I shall deal now with amendment No. 57, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Government amendments No. 15 and 16, which deal with the Secretary of State's power to require the Police Authority to amend the annual policing plan. Although I thought that we had addressed every single issue in our debates on the Bill in Committee, we did not touch on that particular issue. However, it was raised by the Police Authority in subsequent discussions. The point was made that, in that regard, the Bill differs markedly from equivalent legislation in England and Wales, and that that could be presented as detracting from the Police Authority's ownership of the annual policing plan. I should emphasise that there are good reasons for the original drafting of the legislation. The Secretary of State provides all funding for policing in Northern Ireland, and therefore has a crucial interest in the financial matters covered by the plan. Nevertheless, following discussions with the authority, we have agreed arrangements that will safeguard the Secretary of State's position in those matters. Therefore—that being the case, and accepting the authority's view that there are clear presentational advantages in making the amendments—I am happy to change the clause, to bring it more into line with legislation governing policing plans in England and Wales, while continuing to take into account Northern Ireland's specific situation. I believe that the changes take on board the thrust of amendment No. 57, and therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough not to press it. I should like now to deal with amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members. As he said, and as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone repeated, the amendment seeks to place in statute a requirement on the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority during implementation of the policing plan. I fully agree with the principle behind the amendment, and strongly believe that the Chief Constable and the Police Authority would be failing in their duty to the people of Northern Ireland if they were not to consult closely over the annual policing plan during the year in which it is in operation. However, the mechanisms for ensuring that consultation occurs should be worked out as part of the Bill's implementation, and there is no need for a specific provision in statute on that point. I should explain that a provision such as that in amendment No. 60 could imply prior discussions—which is how consultation could be interpreted-that could delay vital operational decisions, thereby fettering the Chief Constable's operational independence. I realise that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment do not want that to happen. Consultation, by its very nature, requires prior discussions. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone mentioned matters of importance that might have to be dealt with by the Chief Constable. If the amendment were passed, the Chief Constable would have to consult on such matters before acting, whereas he might want to act quickly. Furthermore, what would happen if those who were to be consulted said no to the matter under consultation? We discussed the ramifications of such a situation in Committee. Although it would be wrong to establish arrangements such as those proposed in the amendment, we have to create mechanisms for a consultative process, to deal with the normal raft of changes that may arise. We are therefore seeking to establish working groups to implement the legislation's key aspects. I hope that the working group to consider that specific issue will be established soon. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the new arrangements on the policing plan work effectively once the Bill is enacted. There is another safeguard in ensuring the Chief Constable's accountability. Should the Police Authority feel that the mechanisms are not functioning adequately, under clause 48(3), it can call for a report on any matter from the Chief Constable. The Police Authority will therefore have mechanisms by which it can consult the Chief Constable. If it is still not happy, it will be able to use the report mechanism. I therefore do not think that including amendment No. 60 in the Bill will be helpful. Moreover, as the provision might in future be wrongly interpreted, it could fetter the Chief Constable's independence—which I am sure that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment would not wish to happen. Government amendment Nos. 21 to 23 would place a requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult various interested parties before issuing or revising the policing principles under clause 37, the codes of practice under clause 38, or the guidance under clause 39. When that issue was raised in Committee—in the ninth and 10th sittings, at columns 330 to 340—I assured hon. Members that there is regular consultation on many issues with both the authority and the Chief Constable. My intention, nevertheless, was to consult further on those matters. I was therefore happy to undertake to include amendments to that effect on Report—which I am now doing. I should like to mention particularly the requirement under clause 39 to consult the Police Association. The guidance issued under that clause is likely to deal with policing equipment and best practice in respect of police procedures and responses, which are matters in which operational police officers will have a direct interest. I believe that it is only right that the Government should take their views into account before issuing guidance under the provision. I should like, finally, to deal with Government amendment No. 24—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When we debated clause 47 in Committee—in the 1 1 th sitting, at columns 365 to 379—I said that I felt that it was right that the legislation should set a timetable for the Police Authority's annual report. The report is an important document, as it contains an assessment of the Chief Constable's success in achieving the targets set for him under the annual policing plan. I said at the time that four months seemed to be a reasonable time in which to issue the report, but I should be happy to listen to arguments in favour of other time scales, and to table amendments to alter the period to five or six months, if it is demonstrated to be sensible to do so. I have considered the representations made in that debate, and in subsequent discussions. Consequently, I am convinced that a six-month period from the end of the financial year is a reasonable and appropriate time scale in which to issue the report. I shall amend the Bill accordingly. Amendment No. 54 and the amendments grouped with it cover a comprehensive range of matters. Labour Members have demonstrated their recognition of the complexity of this group of amendments, and their willingness to move on in the matter. Although I had planned to summarise this debate, I have decided not to do so—as I know that hon. Members have listened intently to every word that I have said, and understood every word precisely.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I thank the Minister for his clarification of the issues, and for introducing amendments to address the issues that we raised in amendments Nos. 54 and 57. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

STAFF OF THE POLICE AUTHORITY

PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 27, at end insert— '(2A) The Chief Constable shall consult the Police Authority before purchasing any novel or contentious equipment.'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 59, in page 3, line 45, at end insert 'and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17.'. Government amendment No. 5.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Amendment No. 55 does not seek to limit the Chief Constable's power to control the police budget or his powers to allocate resources as he thinks fit and in accordance with the policing plan. It sends the right message to those who may attempt to use the purchase of extra equipment to undermine the work of the police. Amendment No. 55 makes provision for the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority before purchasing "novel or contentious equipment", such as anti-riot equipment, paramilitary-style police clothing and new weaponry. If the Government cannot accept the wording of the amendment, we hope that they will secure the principle behind it, by making sure that any extraneous equipment purchased by the Chief Constable is reported to the Police Authority.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 59, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 5 and inserts the words: and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17. A similar amendment to clause 9 was debated in Committee at some length. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 relate to the financing of the Northern Ireland police service. The original amendment covered "novel and contentious" equipment, and its wording is reflected in amendment No. 55, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). In Committee, however, the Minister rejected the amendment on grounds of definition, although he was predisposed to the sentiments behind it. He said: I have no quarrel with the intention behind the amendment, which makes sense in principle …The Government have made it clear that we intend to require the Chief Constable to consult the authority should he wish to purchase novel or contentious equipment or services. However, 'novel' and 'contentious' are terms without meaning in legislation, and it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 197.] The Minister was predisposed to the intention behind the amendment, but felt that the words "novel" and "contentious" would create difficulties. Amendment No. 59 drops the words "novel and contentious". It relates to equipment that the Chief Constable may wish to purchase in addition to that agreed with the Police Authority under the annual policing plan as set out in clause 17. Clause 17(2) states: The annual policing plan shall include a statement of the Police Authority's priorities for the year, of the financial resources expected to be available to the Authority and"— the key words in respect of the amendment of the proposed allocation of those resources by the Authority". As the Chief Constable submits the draft policing plan to the Police Authority, it is likely that he will set out, under the heading of allocation of resources, the funds that he requires to purchase equipment for the ensuing year. That will eventually be agreed by the Police Authority and incorporated in the annual policing plan. Clause 5 covers equipment in its broadest sense, including buildings, so it seemed appropriate to table an amendment to that clause rather than to clause 9. Although at the beginning of a financial year there would be an agreement between the Police Authority and the Chief Constable under the annual policing plan on the allocation of resources to purchase certain equipment, instances might well arise during the year when the Chief Constable wished to make additional purchases. That could result from changed circumstances in regard to terrorism, law and order or any other sector over which the Chief Constable had responsibility and on which he would wish to take operational decisions quickly, in order to face whatever threat might be posed. We are not saying that there should be an indent for the equipment, but if the Chief Constable intended to purchase equipment additional to that which had been agreed, it would be sensible and certainly extremely helpful for the Police Authority to be consulted before such equipment was purchased. Clause 17 gives the Police Authority tremendous powers. It ensures that what it has agreed vis-a-vis the annual policing plan is transparent, so that the public can see what expenditure has been allocated to various resources. Some of the equipment listed by the Chief Constable in the annual policing plan may well be contentious. If the Chief Constable wished to purchase contentious equipment, however, no doubt the Secretary of State would take a view on that, so no one is arguing that the Chief Constable has complete freedom to buy whatever he or she wants at the time. However, it is right and proper to state in the Bill that the Police Authority—whose policing plan it is, after all—should be consulted on any deviation from the agreed policing plan. In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that he would somehow work the idea into the financial arrangements. No doubt he will allude to that again in his response, but as yet we have not seen the wording of those financial arrangements, so the House is still in the dark. The amendment sets it out extremely clearly. There is no argument about that; and the previous group of Government amendments was very much based on those that we tabled in Committee, reflecting the views of the Police Authority. To give them their due, the Government have moved a considerable way towards meeting the requirements of the Opposition in Committee and taking into account their discussions with the Police Authority. However, until there is clarification as to how the problem will be addressed, the Government should consider accepting our amendment, which would set it out clearly in the Bill that any equipment, including that which could be contentious, will be included in the consultation by the Chief Constable with the Police Authority.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I support amendment No. 59 and agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said in support of it. I shall add one more argument in favour of the amendment. The amendment addresses particular circumstances when the Chief Constable wishes to purchase equipment in addition to what has been agreed under the annual plan. However, it must be borne in mind that the Chief Constable does no purchasing whatsoever under his own authority; he does it on behalf of and in the name of the Police Authority. Therefore, he is exercising the purchasing authority of the Police Authority. It is logical that, if he goes beyond the proposals agreed with the Police Authority, he should consult the Police Authority: he does not have the authority to make the purchase; he is using the authority of the Police Authority and therefore, logically and reasonably, should consult it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

rose—

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Perhaps, before intervening, the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what I have to say about the amendment that he tabled. I shall ask the House to reject amendment No. 59. The reason is that it refers to the policing plan. If the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire looks at the policing plan, he will see that to insert in the Bill what equipment can be bought would completely change the nature of the plan. It is not that kind of document; it is about performance indicators, objectives, and so on. There is no reference to equipment purchase. As I said on amendment No. 55, which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled, the matter will be picked up in the financial instructions; we cannot write it into the Bill. There has been a tendency for police authorities, like local authorities, to become obsessed with what kind of equipment should be bought, thus neglecting their central duty, which is about strategic planning and objective setting, and ensuring that the police keep to their targets and meet them. The same assurance is valuable to both the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We give the undertaking that the issues with which they are concerned will be picked up in the financial instructions, to make it quite clear that the Chief Constable should not go ahead with the purchase of equipment that might have, for example, human rights implications, without it being clear that the Police Authority is involved.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

When will the financial instructions will be written? Could they be made available before the Bill goes to the other place?

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I cannot say whether that will be possible. We want to be completely open on this matter to show that the legitimate points made have been taken into account. As I do not know precisely when the Bill will go to the other place, I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks. His point is taken, and I think that we shall be able to satisfy him on it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I thank the Minister for that clarification and, indeed, for the fact that the financial instructions will contain an answer to the legitimate concern that we raised. Indeed, we would like the relationship between police authorities and chief constables in Great Britain to be resolved as well, because current legislation is a mess.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

There are two sides to the argument on all these issues, and I should like to raise one relating to the acquisition of property to which the Minister did not refer, through no fault of his own—disposal of police property. We have inherited, in most places in the north of Ireland, quite massive police stations. They were built in such a way that they are an environmental affront and substantial amounts of land were requisitioned. It always hurts, especially in a rural community, when land is requisitioned in such a way. We are approaching the stage where I believe that it will be incumbent on the Police Authority to shed property, rather than acquire it. It will be very important that that is done constructively and sensitively. There are already problems. I can quote examples of when I have pleaded with, begged, asked the Police Authority to take certain properties in my constituency because of the danger to people living next to police stations. On financial grounds, the police could not justify doing that. I understand that, in some of those cases, the Police Authority now wishes to requisition the land. That would be grossly unfair to the people who own it and to the people who lived through the trauma of being in danger for so many years. I ask that that be considered very carefully. I specify the case of Newtonhamilton. I should make the Minister aware of the concern there about further requisitioning of land in the centre of the town, which is not required because there is a massive police station. I seek guidance from the Minister on police stations that were built during the past 25 years, which have a minimum height of about 20 m. Building them to that height was not the decision of the Police Authority—it had no say in the design of the buildings. It was a matter for the Chief Constable. Does it make any sense in a peaceful situation for the police station in the middle of a village or in the middle of a city, such as on the Lisburn road in Belfast, to be encased within a 20 m wall? I was continually assured that the design was such that undue height could be removed in circumstances where peace pertained. That is one respect in which we could start to show that we have moved into a different era; it would evoke a response from the community, would make policing more amenable to the community and would be good for policing as well as for the environment in which policing occurs. It is not good for either the community or policing to have to—almost—scale the heights, climb over a mountain, to get into the building. When I go to the police station in my village, I first have to ring a bell. Then I hear a rattling inside, then someone peeps out, and eventually someone opens the gate. I can understand why—that police station has been bombed several times. I still maintain, however, that we must have confidence in what has been done; we must begin a new era. One way of living up to what has been achieved is to start taking down these walls. I was assured that that could be done, when the time was right, without destroying the fabric of the police station. When the police dispose of whatever land is not required, they must do so quickly, and there must be no suggestion of any commercial profit accruing from the requisitioning of land by the Police Authority or anyone else. I hope that the Minister will keep these points at the forefront of his mind, because, unless we all show our intent in relation to the new beginning, we will be left with the remnants of the past. Let us begin now; the Government amendment would allow us to do that quickly and effectively.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is impossible to disagree with the sentiment behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It is always a great shock for people visiting Northern Ireland to see the fortresses that police stations have become. The great prize which may emerge from this agreement is a possible return to some kind of normality—but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been three attempted mortar attacks in the past few weeks, all of which we surmise to have been directed at police stations. In such a climate, it is difficult to declare that this is the moment to withdraw protection from police stations. The hon. Gentleman wants to move in the same direction as we do. I assure him that we shall do so as soon as it is safe.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

When the moment arrives for the disposal of these buildings, I hope that the interests and aspirations of local communities will be genuinely taken into account.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Of course I can give that assurance—it is part of the prize that we all seek.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act: Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

FUNDING OF POLICE AUTHORITY—ANCILLARY PROVISIONS

SETTING OF POLICING OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

SETTING OF POLICING OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS BY POLICE AUTHORITY

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE'S STRATEGIC POLICING PLAN

THE POLICE AUTHORITY'S ANNUAL POLICING PLAN

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF CHIEF CONSTABLE

LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL ACTS OF CONSTABLES

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 2, at end insert—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 16, line 4, after 'appropriate', insert ', and subject to the approval of the Police Authority'.' Government amendments Nos. 19 and 35 to 38.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

In the hope of curtailing our debate, I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—although he has not spoken yet in this debate—so that he can see just how reasonable we are. Amendment No. 56 would require the Chief Constable to obtain the approval of the Police Authority before paying damages for the wrongful actions of his officers. This is a considerable extension of the authority's existing powers in this area, and I suspect that it does not do what the hon. Gentleman sought anyway. The authority's existing power under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1970 is to assess whether the Chief Constable has taken appropriate legal advice in making the decision to settle a case out of court, and ensuring that he pays sufficient regard to the need for economy in the use of public resources in agreeing the amount of any settlement. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said in Committee, this power should continue. However, he did not think primary legislation was the appropriate place for it. We considered the issue at length and there have since been consultations on it with the Police Authority. The concerns expressed, both by hon. Members and by the Police Authority, have been taken on board; they will be described in detail when we move to the Government amendments to clause 29. Amendment No. 56 would not only require the Police Authority to assess whether the Chief Constable had taken appropriate legal advice, but require the authority to form a view on whether an officer had committed a wrong in the course of his duty, and therefore whether the Chief Constable should be liable for the payment of damages. That could give rise to a court finding, as a matter of fact and law, that a police officer had committed a wrong against a member of the public. If the officer were acting in the course of duty, the Chief Constable would be liable for damages in such a situation. Under the amendment, it would be open to the Police Authority to refuse to approve the payment, which would leave the officer himself liable to pay damages which, in many cases, he would be unlikely to be able to do. That gives the authority the power to make decisions in an area that is properly the responsibility of a court; I do not believe that that is what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough intended, and I know that it is not a power that the Police Authority is seeking. I would therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn. As for Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19, as I have said, we discussed clause 29 at considerable length in Committee. I said at that time that I was prepared to listen to reasoned arguments and consider possible amendments on Report, provided I could see the strength of the argument, and could assure myself that the Chief Constable's position was properly protected. An understanding has been arrived at with the Police Authority that this matter will be governed by a set of principles that safeguard the interests of all concerned. The legal position and the powers that the amendment gives the Police Authority are precisely as they were described, when we set out the position under the 1970 Act, in the ninth sitting of Standing Committee B on 5 March. That being so, I am more than happy to amend the Bill so that it maintains the present position regarding civil claims. The Government amendments to schedule 4 are incidental to the new financial arrangements provided by clause 10(5). They ensure that moneys required to be paid as a result of actions against the Chief Constable under the race relations legislation, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 are paid out of the grant made available to the Chief Constable for police purposes under clause 10(5). I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will not press his amendment, in the light of the changes that we are making to clause 29. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is a strange experience to have one's arguments about an amendment answered before they are made and to have one's amendment withdrawn, as it were, before one has said that one wants to withdraw it. Nevertheless, I understand the Minister's point—and, indeed, we do not want to press an amendment that would cause difficulties. The relationship between damages awarded against a constable or even the Chief Constable—in effect, against the police force—the payment of those damages, and the Police Authority raises an important principle. There is grave concern in the United Kingdom as a whole at the way in which chief constables sometimes deal with those claims in isolation from police authorities, as police authorities take the flak when something goes wrong. We tabled the amendment to seek clarification, so I am grateful to the Minister for his response.

STATEMENT OF POLICING PRINCIPLES

CODES OF PRACTICE

GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY POLICE FORCE

ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS BY POLICE AUTHORITY TO SECRETARY OF STATE

THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 25, line 20, leave out 'a' and insert 'an Independent'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in page 25, line 22, after 'of insert 'Independent'. No. 43, in page 25, line 23, at end insert— '(2A) The Independent Police Ombudsman shall ensure that he gives due consideration to the fact that he operates, and is seen to operate, independently of the Government and the Northern Ireland Police Service.'. No. 44, in page 25, line 24, after 'the', insert 'Independent'. Government amendments Nos. 25 and 32. No. 47, in schedule 3, page 41, line 37, leave out from 'be' to 'and' and insert 'until the appointee reaches retirement age'. No. 48, in page 41, leave out lines 39 and 40. No. 49, in page 41, leave out lines 41 and 42. No. 50, in page 42, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 3. No. 51, in page 42, line 23, leave out from 'may' to 'employ' in line 24. No. 52, in page 42, line 25, at end insert 'efficiently and effectively'. No. 53, in page 42, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 on page 43. Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 all refer to the independence of the police ombudsman and his or her office. In Committee, the role and independence of the ombudsman was considered in depth. Liberal Democrats have misgivings about the new ombudsman's role and functions, particularly the ombudsman's relationship with the Police Authority and the Northern Ireland Office, which we believe will have to be developed if it is to be acceptable. We accept the conclusion of Dr. Maurice Hayes that there is a lack of confidence in the current complaints system because it is not sufficiently independent, so we broadly support the Government's aims. The Government have accepted that the principle of independence should be specified in the Bill-we hope that the Minister's explanation of Government amendment No. 25 will suffice. Amendments Nos. 47 to 53 are inevitably linked to the issue of the ombudsman's independence. We agree with what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said in Committee—we do not believe that the independence of the ombudsman service should depend on the person who is appointed. Nevertheless, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would agree, we agree that the right appointment will be extremely important to the success of the new service. We are pleased that the original term of office, which was to be renewable, has been changed to a seven-year fixed term, although we do not understand why a fixed term is necessary. Government amendment No. 32 was tabled to clarify the position on tenure, so I hope that the Minister will explain why the period of tenure should be specified. Surely it is far better that the right person is appointed and continues in post until he or she no longer feels it necessary—we do not want what happened in respect of the European central bank to be repeated. Amendment No. 53 was tabled to question the necessity for schedule 3(5). How can the ombudsman be independent if police officers are recruited and then seconded into his office? The ombudsman will have to investigate the police, so to have police officers as part and parcel of his office, for whatever reason, would undermine the office's independence. That is an important issue, on which we ask the Minister to give a considered response.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 41 to 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), which would add the word "independent" to the title of the ombudsman. I shall then cover Government amendment No. 25, which adds a preamble to part VII of the Bill. After that, I shall speak on amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and Government amendment No. 32, which are related—they deal with the tenure of the ombudsman. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 also deal with the appointment. Finally, I shall deal with amendment No. 53 and Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which cover police service. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 would apply the description "independent" to the police ombudsman's post. I do not believe that they would enhance the legislation. Amendment No. 43 places further emphasis on the independence of the ombudsman. By its very nature, the office of ombudsman is independent. The word "independent" is not used in statute to describe any other ombudsmen, so to use it in the Bill could cast doubt on the independence of other ombudsmen—if it is regarded as necessary to define ombudsmen as independent in Northern Ireland, that could give rise to questions about the independence of other ombudsmen. Moreover, there would be a glaring difference in statute. The powers granted to the ombudsman in the Bill guarantee his or her independence, so it is not necessary to specify the word "independent" in legislation. The parliamentary ombudsman, for example, is not described as independent, but I am sure that hon. Members would agree that his actions demonstrate his independence. Similarly, the police ombudsman will be judged not by the description in the Bill, but by the way in which he or she performs the tasks required by the legislation. I recommend that the House rejects amendments Nos. 41 to 44, as they are unnecessary. Amendment No. 44 also suggests that the ombudsman should operate independently, so I hope that the House will reject it, especially in the light of Government amendment No. 25. Government amendment No. 25 will add a provision to the Bill emphasising that the ombudsman must exercise his or her powers in such a manner and to such an extent as appears to him or her to best secure the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system and the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system. It will, in effect, add a preamble to part VII of the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tabled an amendment along similar lines to Government amendment No. 25. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. öpik) tabled an amendment not dissimilar to amendment No. 43. In the event, it was not moved, as the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, although some members of the Committee supported the idea behind it—members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, accepted that the wording could be improved. I accepted the principle and gave an undertaking to table a Government amendment on Report. In the light of that undertaking, the amendment was withdrawn. Government amendment No. 25 takes into account the essential principles in the Hayes report of the fundamental need for independence and the overriding requisite that the complaints system should command the confidence of both the public and the police. On that basis, I commend that amendment to the House. I also commend Government amendment No. 32 in preference to amendments Nos. 47 to 50. The Government tabled amendment No. 32 in the light of the comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee. Concern was expressed that an ombudsman whose term was subject to renewal might be vulnerable to political pressure, because he or she would want to curry favour with the Government to ensure a second term. Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 suggest that the ombudsman should be appointed on a tenure until retirement. That was also suggested by Dr. Hayes. I do not consider that appropriate in the light of the Nolan recommendations, and recent legislation has tended to limit the tenure of appointments, but to reassure hon. Members that the appointee will not be vulnerable to political pressure, I propose a provision whereby the ombudsman will be appointed for a non-renewable seven-year term, or until 70, whichever is the shorter. The total of seven years is within Sir Leonard Peach's recommendation on total period of service of six to eight years. Both Dr. Maurice Hayes and Sir Leonard Peach have been consulted on the proposal and agree with our approach. A related amendment, No. 50, would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to call on the ombudsman to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Again, that issue was dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh tabled an amendment covering the point; after consideration, it was withdrawn. The success of the ombudsman's office will depend to a large extent on the success of the person who holds the post. It would be wrong to hamper the effectiveness of the ombudsman's office through the inability to remove an ombudsman who is not fulfilling the role required of him or her by the legislation. We all agree that the ombudsman must be, and must be seen to be, independent. That requires that the ombudsman is given a secure appointment, but it does not mean that he or she should be able to continue in post if not performing effectively or efficiently. That is why we have included the provision at paragraph 1(7)(a), stating that the Secretary of State may call upon the ombudsman to retire in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness". The provision is the same as that for the RUC Chief Constable and for chief constables in England and Wales, who are appointed on fixed-term contracts. It is also the same as for the director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The provision is relevant to a single postholder of the importance of the police ombudsman. If he or she is inefficient or ineffective, the Secretary of State should surely act to ensure that the credibility of the office is not lost. The provision for the ombudsman, as with those other provisions, gives ample scope for an appeal against any call to retire. The power allows for the removal of an individual who is manifestly failing, even if his or her conduct does not include actual criminality. That is in the public interest and protects the office of police ombudsman. I hope that hon. Members will accept Government amendment No. 32, and I hope that amendments Nos. 47 to 50 will not be pressed to a vote. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 would remove the requirement for the ombudsman to gain the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and remuneration, and other terms and conditions of service of employees. Instead, the amended provision would state that the ombudsman should employ such persons as he or she thinks fit to enable the ombudsman's functions to be carried out "efficiently and effectively". I cannot accept the amendments. The provision that the Secretary of State must approve the staffing numbers, remuneration and terms and conditions of employees is an important one that is standard in legislation establishing independent statutory bodies and is consistent with Treasury guidance on non-departmental public bodies. The justification for the provision is that it will be for the Government to fund the direct running costs of the ombudsman's office, so we have a responsibility to ensure that funds are not used wastefully. The Government, in consultation with the ombudsman, will ensure that the office is adequately staffed to perform the functions provided for in the legislation. The provision, as drafted, ensures that the Government remain accountable to Parliament for the expenditure voted by Parliament. 7.15 pm I would also argue that the words "efficiently and effectively" are not required. They do not add to the sense of the provision, which deals with employment of staff, not how the ombudsman's functions should be carried out. I hope that amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will not be pressed to a vote. Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34 and amendment No. 53 deal with RUC service with the ombudsman. Amendment No. 53 would remove the detailed provisions on RUC officers serving on the ombudsman's staff and those providing assistance to meet special demands: for example, those who are called in to make door-to-door inquiries. Those are arrangements that Dr. Hayes recommended, and I will hold consultations with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints on the issue. Amendment No. 53 would clearly create an inconsistency. I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote. The schedule, as drafted, provides that The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements for members of the police force to be engaged for a period of temporary service with the Ombudsman. That provision was interpreted by some, including members of the Standing Committee—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—as requiring the ombudsman to engage police officers for all time. That was not our intention in drafting the provision, which is designed to require arrangements to be made in case members of the police are engaged by the ombudsman. Those arrangements would deal with the way in which officers were to be paid, to get leave, and so on. Although I regarded the provision as clear, as did the legislative draftsman, in the light of the concerns expressed, I concluded that there should be a change to make it clearer. That again shows that we benefited from the input from hon. Members in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will agree to Government amendments Nos. 25, 32, 33 and 34, and that the others will not be pressed to a vote.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

This is one part of the Bill that is welcomed by all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That point was well made on Second Reading. For many years, those who represented people in Northern Ireland were anxious that there should be an independent body to deal with complaints against the police. In the appointment of the ombudsman, that is set in place. There are some difficulties re appointment, and those and other matters have been explained by the Minister. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman will be appointed, and that at long last people will know that he is independent of the police. No matter how acceptably police officers carry out their duty, we cannot ask them to be judge and jury in cases involving their own. Their doing so has always left a doubt in people's minds, and made many reluctant to go along that route. The proposal will benefit all parts of the community, and it will be widely welcomed.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I warmly welcome the Government amendments. I notice that the Minister is looking at me in what is almost a state of shock. I understand why he may feel that, but I genuinely welcome them. It is crucial that changes be made. The essence of an independent ombudsman is that he should make his decisions. Government amendment No. 33 changes the Bill from stating: The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements". That original wording reduced the ombudsman's independent ability to make what arrangements he chose. It is essential to the independence of his office that there is no legislative imperative to enter into arrangements, and no legislative imperative not to enter into arrangements. Under Government amendment No. 33, the ombudsman can decide independently of the Bill, of the Secretary of State and of the police what arrangements he or she will make for use of the police, whether it is the Northern Ireland service—as in this case—or one from abroad. I am especially pleased by that crucial change. Recent experience suggests that those who hold independent offices in Northern Ireland come under severe pressure at times. One might not believe all the rumours, but those who hold such offices must be strong people. They have to trample on toes and take on vested interests in the Government, the police, the Police Federation and the community. They must have full legislative independence to allow them to do that. I repeat that I warmly welcome the Government amendments, which change the whole complexion of this part of the Bill. Everyone will be pleased by them. I also welcome what the Minister said about the ombudsman's relationship with the community and the police service. It will not be healthy if there are tensions between the community and the ombudsman, or between the police and the ombudsman. We need a remarkable person for the job, and I believe that the Government's changes are worth while. When we deal with legislation, we rightly consider all eventualities. Let me pose one that does not come readily to mind in Northern Irish terms, whereby tensions in the community start to dissipate, attitudes towards policing change and relationships in the communities respond to those changes. In those circumstances, it would be right to have the powers of an independent ombudsman. Other hon. Members and I look forward to the day when that person is appointed, and, in the longer term, to the time when he or she becomes just a memory. Change will not come unless we have absolute independence for the right person in the job. Our legislation must not tie the ombudsman down in any way, and must allow for independent decisions. That will affect the way in which police complaints will evolve, even over the next five years.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 go a long way to resolving many of the issues that we wanted to raise on Report. We are still concerned about paragraph 5 of schedule 3, but will return to it in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

COMPLAINTS—RECEIPT AND INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLAINTS

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 25, line 41, at end insert—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are very plain. One of the great frustrations in taking a complaint to the ombudsman—even in England, whether it be the parliamentary ombudsman, one in local government or another—is keeping abreast of what is happening. The amendments are intended to put in the Bill, or otherwise establish, the principles that a complaint should be constantly monitored, and that the complainant should receive feedback. If the ombudsman takes any action, it should be reported to the complainant.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between us, although I do not believe that what he wants should be written into the Bill. The amendments contain definitional problems, such as the meaning of development, but the hon. Gentleman's point that the complainant should be kept informed ought to be taken care of in the regulations and guidance that will accompany the Bill. Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 58 all affect clause 64. I shall try to make the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) happy again by saying that the amendments follow the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 on informing complainants who request a record. We believe that a person should automatically receive a record of the outcome of his case. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, I agreed to introduce an amendment on Report, and he withdrew his amendment. The amendment that we have tabled meets the point that was made in Committee, and I recommend it to the House. Amendment No. 27 makes an enabling provision in clause 64 for regulations authorising or requiring the ombudsman to provide "the appropriate disciplinary authority" with information relevant to the exercise of any power of suspension. In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh tabled an amendment that brought to our attention the fact that, with the ombudsman controlling the case, the Chief Constable would not automatically know what was happening and that the suspension of an officer during that case might not occur. Again, we agreed that an amendment along those lines made sense and undertook to introduce one on Report. At present, during investigations by the RUC into complaints against the police, the evidence is constantly reviewed and the Chief Constable can order suspension if he sees fit. The amendment enables the ombudsman to provide the information to the Chief Constable or Police Authority so that they can consider whether suspension is appropriate. I commend the amendment to the House. 7.30 pm Finally, I shall deal with amendment No. 58. We said that we wanted to consider powers for the ombudsman to make recommendations to the Chief Constable for the payment of ex gratia sums. Dr. Hayes expected that the sums would be modest. In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh tabled a new clause to require the ombudsman to consider compensation and to direct a payment where "circumstances warrant it". That proposal went further than Dr Hayes's recommendations, but I said in Committee that we were sympathetic to the introduction of a wider compensation provision for substantiated cases, if there could be a simple procedure. Having considered the matter, we have concluded that the balance of argument is in favour of what the hon. Gentleman suggested. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 58. It provides a power—I want to be absolutely clear about this—allowing the Government to make regulations that would enable the ombudsman to make recommendations to the Chief Constable to pay a modest level of compensation. The hon. Gentleman may well ask what is meant by a modest level of compensation. We have in our mind up to about £3,000—the level in the small claims court in England and Wales—to a complainant, where a complaint has been substantiated. Of course, that does not take away the right of a complainant to go to the civil court. If the complainant went to the civil court, we would expect the amount that had been paid to be taken into account. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that we are making the amendment because we can see the sense of tackling the issue of compensation now so that we do not have to introduce further primary legislation. We intend that the regulations will be implemented only after careful consideration. We shall consider the experience of the early days of the ombudsman's office and consult the ombudsman who is in position before we introduce any scheme, to ensure that he or she is content with it, and we shall also consult the police and the Police Authority on the detail.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister clarify the point that he made about an amount of £3,000? I take it that he means an amount up to and including £3,000, and that it is not a stipulated amount.

Tony Worthington (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving me the opportunity to clear away any doubt. I knew that, if I referred to a compensation amount, people would want to know how much, and I have tried to provide that information. What is in our mind is an amount of up to £3,000. It could not be a fixed tariff. We are simply taking powers. The provision was not in the Bill and we shall need to consult the police, the Police Authority and any other bodies about how it was introduced. We need to have the experience of the ombudsman. I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh realises that we have taken serious account of the points that he has raised. I hope that the amendments tabled by the Government will be accepted.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I assure the Minister that I welcome the Government amendments. I am pleased with them. They have gone a long way to meet the aims of the three proposals that I made in Committee. I shall not detain the House further. I welcome the Government amendments. They are an advance on the situation.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

REGULATIONS

INTERPRETATION

THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

AMENDMENTS

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I shall not detain the House much longer, but it is important that we comment on the considerable debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We have had another useful debate on all the issues involved in the Bill this evening. The provisions of the Bill will establish a more efficient, effective, accountable and acceptable police service in Northern Ireland. It is worth reflecting briefly on the significant provisions in the Bill. It preserves the operational independence of the Chief Constable. He will remain free of partisan political control. It also preserves and more clearly focuses the role of the Police Authority. It introduces new police objective setting and planning mechanisms. Those will enable greater accountability of the police to the community through the Police Authority. The Bill clarifies the responsibilities and roles of the partners in the tripartite structure. It enables financial responsibility for the day-to-day management of policing to pass to the Chief Constable from the Police Authority so that the local senior officer can be held accountable for the service that he or she delivers. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a new independent system for investigating police complaints. That measure, above all others, has received unanimous support. The provisions of the Bill are therefore the building blocks on which other sensible improvements can be made if found to be necessary in the future. There is no doubt that the Bill has benefited from its passage through the Commons. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members from all parties for their contribution. I also thank the Police Authority, the RUC and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for their valuable contributions as the Bill has proceeded through the House. All have had a major input in shaping the Bill. It will leave the House in a form that will command the full support not only of the House of Commons but of people across Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, while we were taking the Bill through its Commons stages, the on-going talks process resulted in the Good Friday agreement. That agreement, if endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland on 22 May, will result in the setting up of an independent commission on policing. Many of the key features of the Bill are identified in principles set out in the agreement and in the terms of reference for the independent commission, which will consider those essential ingredients of sound, effective and widely supported policing arrangements for Northern Ireland. The independent commission will be truly independent and will look at the areas identified in its terms of reference; therefore, it can look at this legislation. However, I am sure that, when it does so, it will take due note of our deliberations and the support in the House and across Northern Ireland for the Bill's provisions. The Bill will bring real benefits to all the people of Northern Ireland, because good, effective policing is at the very heart of any law-abiding society. It is a worthwhile and necessary measure, and I commend it to the House.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I concur with most of what the Minister has just said. I went through the amendment paper and counted 38 Government amendments on Report, which is adequate testimony to the proper and detailed scrutiny that the Bill has received, both in Committee and on Report. The Bill was in gestation during the time of the previous Government, but considerable additions and changes have been made by the Labour Government and there are differences from the legislation that pertains in England and Wales. I give credit to the Minister and his team for the constructive way in which they have addressed the concerns expressed by Opposition members of the Committee. Despite political change, it was important to go ahead with the legislation. Northern Ireland is disadvantaged by not having a Police Authority with appropriate powers to look after the public interest—powers that have been enjoyed for some time by police authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill not only defines an expanded role for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, but gives it considerably enhanced powers and responsibilities. First and foremost, it is accountable to the general public and most of the amendments tabled in Committee were designed to clarify that role and strengthen the powers of the Police Authority to fulfil it. The new and evolving political situation provides a changing backdrop for the Bill; it also raises questions about the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Opposition have been reassured by the Prime Minister's comments on a secure future for the RUC, but we would be most unhappy to see any developments that undermined the RUC's morale and efficiency. We view the forthcoming commission as an opportunity, not a trial—an opportunity to put on the record in a conclusive and definitive way the significant contribution made by the RUC to law and order, to the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland and to general stability in society. Great sacrifices have been made by numerous brave officers in the face of threats and intimidation over many years and we commend that record of unstinting service, both to the Crown and to the communities of Northern Ireland. We are confident that the commission will reach similar conclusions as there is nothing to hide. The Bill puts policing in Northern Ireland on a completely new level. The changes are to be welcomed, dealing as they do not only with the powers of the enhanced Police Authority, but with the new position of the police ombudsman. That breaks entirely new ground and is ahead of the legislation that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. There are several areas in which the Opposition would still like to see some change and those will, no doubt, be the subject of debate in the other place. For the time being, the Bill is much better for the amendments that have been made.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I suppose that there are times in one's life when one feels that the efforts that one has made here are ignored and unrewarded. I have endured that feeling on many occasions in the past and will probably do so on many occasions in the future. However, in this instance, I feel that the long hours that we have spent taking the Bill through its various stages have been worth while. As someone who has been closely associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary for many years, I have been deeply concerned at how external interests have had dominance over the interests of a police service that, not only for the past 28 years but for the past 42 years—with the exception of about nine uneasy years tucked in at various points—has had to place itself time and again as a bulwark between the law-abiding community and the terrorist. I sometimes get the feeling that that role is forgotten. I had that feeling a couple of years ago when the Chief Constable was conducting his fundamental review and looking at the possibility of a peaceful society in Northern Ireland and at the ultimate necessity of downsizing the RUC. At that time, I searched for what the RUC, with its more than 300 dead policemen and its more than 7,000 injured policemen, had been given that was out of the ordinary and took account of the special circumstances in which it has to police. I looked at the £240 million that came from the peace and reconciliation fund and discovered that the RUC had not been given a single solitary brass farthing. I raise that matter because, with the help of others who are friends of the RUC and who are concerned about the welfare of the RUC, and with the RUC federation, there was established at that time the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. Originally, it was hoped that the trust would provide on-going medical assessment for policemen who were suffering the physical and mental effects of so many years combating terrorism; and that, looking forward to a more peaceful society and the need to downsize, we would not have several hundred, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 policemen suddenly discarded without any consideration for their welfare. The trust has continued to work over the past couple of years with those aims in mind. It is with a degree of enjoyment—there is no better word—that I acknowledge the work that the Minister of State has done since we first broached the subject with him five months ago. That work has led to the Prime Minister announcing yesterday a £4.5 million package to be used to provide physical and mental assessments so that members of the police in Northern Ireland will have access, at the right time, to the best medical care; and so that a policeman no longer feels he has to hide chronic illnesses, but knows that they can be dealt with efficiently and effectively. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will also approve the concept of retraining our police for the future, before the event. I am grateful that the Government have reacted so positively on that issue. As we move hopefully towards, not just an agreement signed or assented to on 10 April or the referendum result that will come on 22 May, but greater accommodation and understanding between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, I should like to think that the role of the police will change to a considerable degree, so that both traditions will accord the sort of respect to our constabulary that they expect our constabulary to accord them. That process could begin if we do not create circumstances in which the police have to continue to occupy a position between the two traditions. It could begin if the nonsense and obscenity of Harryville comes to an end. It could begin if the nonsense and obscenity of those who oppose the church parade at Drumcree comes to an end. If we are to have ultimate agreement in our society in Northern Ireland, there has to be respect between the two traditions. We cannot say that we believe in equity and equality of treatment if at the same time we are saying, "I cannot stand the sight of that person from the other tradition to the extent that he cannot walk to his church once a year or every Saturday evening." The RUC has for many years been an anti-terrorist police force, but it has also fulfilled with great efficiency its role as a civil power. Its level of detection, ability to obtain convictions and crime prevention work, whether on burglary or drugs, are of considerable note. It is a successful constabulary, but it is to be examined once again. Examination is not a bad thing, except when it is repeated many times. The RUC seems always to be under the microscope. The appointment of a commission will be crucial to the RUC's confidence and morale. The commission's task, first and foremost, must be to ensure the welfare of the RUC, now and in the future. I hope that, in the light of new arrangements, there will be a recognition that the RUC has a right to its history, just as we all believe that we have such a right. I hope also that the clamour for a change in name and for other unnecessary and mischievous changes will abate, and that, in the light of the Bill and what is to come, we shall consider carefully how our civil power can operate normally in a civil society. The police recognise that downsizing is an inevitable consequence of peace, but I have never heard a policeman say, "I should like the violence and confrontation to increase because my job is at stake." I work closely with the police. They are always looking for the moment when they are rewarded for their years of working to protect society in Northern Ireland. In the wake of the decision that we are making today, and of other decisions that have been made in the past couple of months, and in looking forward to constructive decisions that I hope will be made in the coming months, we should all adopt a compassionate attitude—I do not think that that is an exaggeration—to those who have faced so much on our behalf and who now have to go through yet another period of uncertainty, with retraining and perhaps even having to find a new job in the next four or five years. Our Royal Ulster Constabulary deserves that compassion. I am grateful to the Minister and those in his Department who have helped to make the Bill more acceptable to the interests of the RUC and of the Police Authority, which has an important role in ensuring that society has a channel to the law keepers and law enforcers.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Like other hon. Members, I am pleased and relieved that we have reached the final stages of the Bill. It has been a long, tedious and difficult Bill because of its innovations. In Committee and in the House we have debated policing without ever deviating to discuss the police. That tells us something about the process that we have been through. The Bill is not a watershed, but it is certainly a signpost in the right direction. I am not being less than generous to it when I say that its principles will extend far beyond the time when the problem may start to be solved. That solution will come inexorably. When it does, the current and previous Governments can take great credit for having had the foresight to see that things were going to change and for trying to deal with that change constructively and positively. We have dealt with a difficult aspect of Northern Irish life, as the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) showed. On one side of the community there is a deep emotional attachment to policing, but there is a chasm on the other side. We have to address that. We can deal with the technicalities in legislation, but the gap must be dealt with. The issue symbolises the division in our community. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must start to bind the wounds, because they are deep and are linked to powerful emotions throughout the entire community. I come from a village that lost a number of people who were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They were killed by IRA terrorists. I knew them. I knew their families. I know the effect that such loss has on an entire community, and I know how deep a residue it leaves on both sides—not only deep hurt, but a sense of guilt, which must be dealt with too. I respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone by saying that if the new agreement is passed, as it will be on 22 May, it will be followed by an election, and it will then start to operate. Those are the technical elements of the agreement, but what are its essence and ethos? For the first time, what are now two communities in the north of Ireland will, we hope, start to work with a unity of purpose that will allow us to bind the wounds and to deal with the scars, to start the process of accommodation and to start the process—if I may use the term without sounding banal—of forgiveness, because that is what it will have to be. We must start the process of restoring self-respect to everyone in the north of Ireland. That is one of the things that is at stake, especially in relation to what we have been discussing today. I could almost hear the sound of the post-colonial bugle in the speech made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—I could hear the emotion in it; but I suggest to him that there should be no feeling of triumphalism on either side. There should be no feeling of losing or winning in relation to this issue. There should be no feeling of getting one over the other fellow, or one community getting something other than what is agreed by the other community. I believe that, very quickly, once that approach starts to operate, it will solve the problems of policing, as it will solve the political problems, the problems of instability, the problems of bigotry and the problems of hatred—the problems whose roots are so deeply embedded in our entire community. Good Friday and the week leading up to it were among the most remarkable days of my life, because there was a sense of something happening which was good and would never be lost. Participation in the Bill's passage has also been good for all of us, because when we look into the future, we realise some of the challenges that we must face. I look forward to facing those challenges alongside the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and all his honourable colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to facing up to the problems that we must deal with, binding the wounds that we have to bind and creating the self-respect for everyone that we must create as a priority. Political leadership in Northern Ireland will be crucial. It is my belief that, when the agreement is implemented and the assembly is set up, the assembly will come of age when those in it agree to assume full responsibility for the process of policing and justice, because that goes to the heart of any society—agreeing how it will live. That is the primary responsibility that any political authority should seek. That will not happen quickly and it will not happen without many problems—time will be of the essence in binding the wounds and bridging the gaps—but the assembly will have come of age when, in effect, the people of the north of Ireland, from all sides, together, assume responsibility for that crucial part of their lives. I have spent 18 years as a spokesman on policing and justice, which I have found a fairly difficult area due to the divisions, tensions and aberrations of attitude in both communities, but I hope that there is one thing I never lost: the belief that, somehow or another, through time, by using our abilities, through whatever grace is given to us, we would be able to start together; Unionist, nationalist, republican, loyalist, Catholic, Protestant—call it what you like; one word will do me, people—in the north of Ireland, to solve these problems. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made a very proper and poignant reference to the fund for policemen who had been injured physically or mentally, and their families, because they have suffered greatly too. I want to be associated with those remarks. I want it to be known that I believe that it is right that those people should receive recognition and get whatever comfort they can be given. It is stark, but I believe that the greatest tribute that we can pay to all those who died—ordinary people, policemen, soldiers or whoever—in the past 25 years of barbarism is together to start to bind those wounds, and by binding them, solve these problems once and for all.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to express a different point of view—one that will not surprise the House. I stood in the European Parliament on Wednesday 29 April and I saw the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic sitting together. I have heard some very good and rightful tributes to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but one question is uppermost in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the agreement, those who have been amenable to the law for some of the murders of the 270-odd police officers and others who have died will be out on the streets in 24 months; and yet one police officer was murdered in the south of Ireland and the amnesty will not affect the man who murdered him. He stays—rightly, in my opinion—behind bars. I want to say on behalf of those who cannot speak—the 270 police officers: is the agony that their loved ones went through any different from the agony of that one wife in the south of Ireland? Some say that there are no winners, but there are winners in regard to that matter. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that it goes very deep, but we cannot deal with the wounds except by facing up to them realistically. The hon. Gentleman should not be too sure about 22 May. When the Prime Minister was in our country he had a conversation with various people. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland is a closely related society. He was worried about his opinion polls, and he mentioned figures that did not bear out what his opinion polls were telling him about 22 May. People should not think that ordinary Unionists in Northern Ireland will be bribed, bullied or attacked into not doing what they know in their hearts they should do. Time will tell, but one thing is certain: the majority of the Unionist population will not be voting yes in the referendum. We shall see whether all parties stand on the same platform. We shall see how far there is a consensus, with a majority of one side of the community agreeing with a majority of the other side. The agreement departs from that principle because it makes it clear that if at any time 50 per cent. plus one—not the majority of each part of the population—say that Ulster should go into a united Ireland, the Governments of both countries will see to it that that takes place. The House should recognise that. We are told in speeches that there are no winners, then we listen to what Gerry Adams says. Some members of the party to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh belongs are saying entirely different things—not what we have heard in the House today about the RUC, but about its destruction. They do not want a reconstructed RUC; they want a new police force in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland must consider that. All over Northern Ireland there are sorrowing hearts. There is no difference between the sorrow of a Protestant mother and that of a Roman Catholic mother. There is no difference in the heart's agony. I have been in the homes of both communities, and I know what I am speaking of. I have perhaps attended more funerals in both communities than any other person. I know how they feel. The House must not think that the Bill will serve as a magic wand and change the entire situation. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) knows how divided his party is on the issue and how the majority of the official Unionist Members of Parliament feel about it. Elected representatives know the feeling of their community and they know the feeling that motivates that community. As I said on Second Reading, I do not believe that the Bill was brought before the House so quickly just because the Government were anxious to deal with it. The arrangement was a sop to republicans. I reminded myself of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said in his speech on Second Reading, when we discussed the oath that the police take to Her Majesty the Queen, which the Bill will do away with. He said: I welcome the change in the affirmation or oath, although I do not believe that it will make any fundamental difference to the problem."— [Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 57.] There is reality. Other people think that if they remove this, that and the other, they will have solved the problem. They will have done nothing of the sort. The solution will be accomplished only when all men are equal under the law and all are equally subject to the law. The agreement deviates fundamentally from that principle. As I said to the Prime Minister on one occasion, there was a terrible tragedy in Scotland. Young people were mown down by a gunman. There was heartbreak and heartache. What happened? The previous Government, and the Government formed by the right hon. Gentleman when they came to power, decided to take the licensed guns from everyone. That legislation went through the House and those who held on to their guns would get a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol. We have arsenals of arms—not licensed guns, but guns that have done some of the most horrendous murders, brought tears to the widows and orphans, split families, destroyed society, and spread grief and harm. Yes, those guns are held by both sides of the community, yet the Government do not say, "Bring in those guns. Let them all be taken in." The policy of the talks was that their surrender must be a mutual process: those who held murder weapons must mutually agree to hand them in. That day will never dawn. I have heard people say that the ghosts of the past haunt us, but it is not the ghosts of the past that haunt the people of Northern Ireland tonight. What haunts them tonight is the reality of the present and the future, when gunmen will be in the streets and have access to those arsenals of arms and be ready to use them if they do not get their way, as they have in the past. That is what worries the people of Northern Ireland, and the Bill does not deal with it. People here do not want to discuss the matter, but it hangs as a shadow over the future of my Province. Such matters cannot be swept under the carpet; they must be faced. There is unity on one part of the Bill, as I mentioned, and I am glad of that, but much of the rest of the Bill is a sop to republican thinking. We could have waited until the commission was in place, but the tide of time will run on to 22 May and beyond. We shall see what is in the minds and the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. No £3 million will be spent by the ordinary people in Northern Ireland on the referendum. That will be Government money. No special money will be set aside by so-called business interests to promote their attitude among the people. The ordinary man in Ulster will do his duty and his voice will be heard. I hope that the House will listen to it because, time and again, it has not heeded the voices of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. I remind the House of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was supposed to heal the malady. The House may remember that hon. Members from the Unionist groupings left this place and fought an election—and we know the results of that election. The people spoke, but they were not listened to. The people gathered, and they were not listened to. Perhaps on this occasion they will be listened to. In heeding the voice of the people, we shall find the way forward for Northern Ireland.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PROTECTION OF TITLE) BILL

Lighter Fuel Abuse

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of solvent abuse, particularly in relation to lighter fuel and butane gas, but I am sad to have to do so because of the tragic consequences of that abuse. The matter has been discussed many times in the House through oral questions, written questions and early-day motions. Death is always traumatic, but the needless and tragic death of a young person who seemed to have the prospect of a bright future leaves us with a sense of disbelief and despair. Chantelle Bleau died on 1 December 1997 at the age of 16 after sniffing gas lighter fuel. Chantelle was studying for 11 GCSEs and was an active and bubbly teenager involved in drama and music. She had many friends, and was active in the community. Her loving family are devastated by the loss of their daughter and sister. Mrs. Bleau said that they were a very close family, and that there were no symptoms or signs of what Chantelle was doing. She said: I just don't know why she did it. I think some kids experiment with drugs and get away with it. But Chantelle hasn't, she has paid with her life. The sad irony is that Chantelle was successful in gaining a part in an anti-drugs play called "Deadly Deals", which toured local schools raising drugs awareness issues. Chantelle's parents and her community, in their grief, have vowed to do what they can to prevent a similar tragedy from happening to other families. They have set up a memorial fund designed to raise the awareness of teenagers and parents to the dangers of inhaling toxic solvents and gases. They hope to do that by establishing a resource centre to provide information about the dangers and effects of gas inhalation; by promoting publicity campaigns targeting vulnerable groups; by providing and training a team that will raise awareness in schools and youth clubs; and by establishing a support group for families that are affected by solvent abuse. I pay tribute to all who have participated in the fund, particularly Yvonne Hutchinson, the fund co-ordinator, and members of the Abundant Life Centre church. I also commend our local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus, which, through its reporter Nick Oldham, has done sterling work in raising the issues. I am pleased that the fund has received support from the entire community in our area. If only Chantelle's death was an isolated incident, but sadly it is not. According to Re-Solv, a national organisation established in 1994 to prevent solvent abuse, volatile substance abuse kills more young people than any controlled drug. A Home Office report said that, between 1984 and 1996, more than three times as many young people under the age of 20 died from volatile substance abuse as from other illegal drugs. In Yorkshire alone, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths—up to 200 per cent.—in the past two years. A direct comparison of deaths reveals that, between 1989 and 1995, Ecstasy killed 60 young people, while 660 young people died as a consequence of VSA. That is a ratio of 11: 1. They are horrific figures. There was some hope that the figures were declining, but the figures for 1995 brought an abrupt halt to that decline. VSA killed 68 young people in that year—a 17 per cent. increase on the previous year. In one in five of those deaths, there was no previous history of abuse—but the victims did not get a second chance. Another terrible tragedy was the death of Christopher Smith, who was only seven years old. He was found in the cab of an abandoned pick-up truck at a travellers' camp. There have been many more tragic deaths. Kevin Gregory, aged 15, died in March 1996 as a result of sniffing lighter fuel. Doctors smelled lighter fuel when he was taken to hospital, and his brother found a canister under his bed. Mark Campbell, who died in June 1996 aged 17, was found in a flat surrounded by canisters. He had been lonely and bullied. Glen Brooks, aged 15, was found dying on a playing field with canisters around him. We could recollect many such tragic cases this evening. Doctors are calling the epidemic "sudden sniffing death". North Yorkshire county council trading standards officers took a 14-year-old girl to 20 shops. In 19, she was able to buy adhesives and gas—only one shop refused her. Trading standards officers up and down the country are calling for regulations that work. They have suggested regulations similar to those governing the sale of tobacco as a possible solution to the problem. I applaud and congratulate Re-Solv, which works with the all-party group on solvent abuse—it was established because of the scale of the problem. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is in the Chamber. He was a director of Re-Solv before he came to the House, and I know that he wishes to contribute to the debate this evening. Various solvents are the subject of abuse, including adhesives, aerosols, dry cleaning and de-greasing agents, fire extinguishers, paint, paint thinners, paint strippers and fuel gases. I shall concentrate on fuel gases, such as butane, which killed Chantelle. Butane is colourless and odourless. Manufacturers must find ways of increasing consumer awareness and education, and of notifying the public of the dangers of butane. Changing the nozzles on butane lighter refills might help, or perhaps an unpleasant-smelling substance could be added to the butane to discourage people from inhaling it. We must ask the manufacturers to co-operate even further by issuing tougher warnings. If that co-operation is not forthcoming, the next step may be to ban lighter refuelling. There are many throwaway lighters on the market, so why do we need lighter refills that are so dangerous and so accessible to young people? In raising this case tonight, it is my intention and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who have supported the fight, to add our weight to the campaign for greater awareness and education and tighter restrictions to prevent more young people from ending up like Chantelle. I am pleased to say that the fund is supported by the Leader of the House and by the drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell. I know that Ministers are considering introducing restrictions on the sale of solvents. We must do something about this epidemic. We cannot allow cases such as Chantelle's to develop. We must ensure that there is greater education and awareness. The parents of Chantelle Bleau and the local community have tried to ensure that this tragedy does not happen to others. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government will try to put the matter right. In light of the figures that have been cited, this problem must be addressed. Many young people are dying as a result of trying a substance that they do not believe to be harmful. I am happy to have had the opportunity to raise the issue in this Adjournment debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn wishes to contribute, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) for raising this important issue. I look forward with interest to hearing what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says in reply. I simply seek to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South because, for the six years that I have been a Member of the House, I have been secretary of the all-party group on solvent abuse, and, before entering the House, I worked in a professional capacity helping with the reduction of solvent abuse. I remain concerned about the level, impact and effect of solvent abuse, and the need for a strategy to deal with the issue in future. As my hon. Friend said, on average three young people will die each week from the abuse of solvents and volatile substances. Those products are available in the home and in the garage. They are products which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I buy for perfectly legitimate purposes—for painting the house or varnishing the floor, for hair spray or nail polish, and for correction fluid. In particular, my hon. Friend highlighted butane gas for cigarette lighters. Each of those products has a legitimate use, but each and every one can be used, particularly by young people because of their availability, leading, in some cases, to instant death. Legislation is on the statute book dealing with solvent and volatile substance abuse. The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, promoted by the then hon. Member for Tynemouth, Neville Trotter, restricts and regulates the sale of potentially abusable products to people under the age of 18 if the shopkeeper or retailer feels that those products are being bought for the purpose of abuse. Greater education, enforcement and understanding of that legislation is needed so that all retailers are aware of it and have the support of trading standards officers in its random enforcement, and so that local authorities can ensure that the Act is understood and well known. The recent drugs strategy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is also helpful. That strategy covers solvent and volatile substance abuse. It is important that the need for the strategy is made known and understood, so that parents, teachers, youth workers and others in positions of responsibility for the well-being of young people understand the nature of such products, their potential dangers, and the reasons why young people abuse them. In particular, we need to tackle the issue in schools and deal with the big problem of peer group pressure for seven to 12-year-olds whose friends encourage them to try something. We must establish strategies to give young people the resilience to understand the problem and the products available, and to be able to resist the pressures and say no. I re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said about butane gas in particular. In reply to a parliamentary question of mine on 6 April, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), stated that, in the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, 465 people died as a result of butane gas lighter abuse alone. That does not take into account any other form of solvent abuse. Of those, 48 were under the age of 14, and 286 were under the age of 19. I am aware that my hon. Friend is considering consulting on the practicality of introducing a limit of 16 years of age on the sale of gas lighter refills, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), said in a parliamentary written answer. I simply say that butane gas is the real killer in terms of solvent and volatile substance abuse. That is what is killing most young people at the moment, and killing them early and quickly. That consultation needs to take place soon. I hope that my hon. Friend will open it up, so that retailers, trading standards authorities and individuals such as parents can contribute and make the consultation valid. The 465 deaths from abuse of butane gas lighters show that there is an argument to bring the sale of that product into line with the sale of cigarettes. Most people use butane gas lighters to light cigarettes. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 16, so I see no reason why it should not be the same for volatile substances. My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) have taken a great interest in the subject. I shall ensure that the campaign continues to reduce the number of deaths. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South for allowing me to contribute.