Orders of the Day — Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

House of Commons, 11 July 2000.

DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP SUB-GROUPS FOR BELFAST

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in clause 14, page 7 line 32, after "establish", insert— 'within 6 months from the commencement date of this Act'. Amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 8, line 3, leave out "section 14(1)" and insert— 'any part of Part III of this Act'. Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, leave out "have regard to" and insert "comply with". Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 9, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall". Amendment No. 61, in page 9, line 25, after "and", insert "may". Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert— '(b) a duty to hold all meetings of the district policing partnership in public;'. Amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 40, leave out from "police" to "for" in line 41 and insert— 'service of their functions and operations in the district to be put by members of the district policing partnership and by members of the public'. Amendment No. 62, in page 10, line 8, at end add— '(3A) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing.'. Amendment No. 63, in clause 54, page 27, line 37, at end add— '(j) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions; (k) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships.'. Government amendment No. 213. Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 37, line 30, leave out— 'as far as is practicable'. Amendment No. 8, in page 37, line 33, after "consult", insert— 'for a period not longer than three months'. Amendment No. 7, in page 37, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6). Amendment No. 9, in page 38, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert— '(9) The members of the board shall, at their first meeting, elect a chair and a vice-chair; the appointments will not be confirmed unless the First and Deputy First Ministers agree to them; the Board shall ensure that— (a) the offices of chair and vice-chair are at all times held by members of different political parties; (b) a person is appointed to the office of chair and vice-chair for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the next Assembly elections, and (c) the office of chair is held by each of the four largest parties represented in the Assembly after the last assembly election.'. Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216. Amendment No. 10, in page 38, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (c). Amendment No. 11, in page 40, line 45, after— 'consult', insert for a period not longer than three months'. Amendment No. 303, in page 41, line 25, at end insert— '(1A) The Secretary of State shall remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that—'. Amendment No. 12, in page 41, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (c). Amendment No. 304, in page 41, line 29, at end insert— '( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in Section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998; ( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in Section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'. Amendment No. 13, in page 41, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (c). Amendment No. 305, in page 41, line 45, at end add— '(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act; (e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not); (f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'. Government amendment No. 218. Amendment No. 19, in schedule 3, page 48, line 29, after "power", insert— 'within 6 months of the commencement of this Act'. Amendment No. 20, in page 49, line 3, after "council", insert— 'within one month of receipt of the nominations'. Amendment No. 21, in page 49, line 18, at end add '; before making such appointments the Council shall satisfy itself that it has taken all reasonable steps to make the district community aware that nominations are due to be made, that it has invited applications from that community and that, following thorough consideration of all applications, that the persons nominated, so far as is practicable, reflect that community.'. Amendment No. 306, in page 50, line 10, at end insert— '(2A) The Board or the council, with the approval of the Board, shall remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a DPP if satisfied that— (a) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; (b) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;'. Amendment No. 307, in page 50, line 24, leave out "an independent" and insert "a". Amendment No. 22, in page 52, line 2, after first "may", insert— 'with the agreement of the Board'.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I said at the fourth sitting of the Committee on 20 June that the Government were considering Patten's recommendation No. 28 that there should be four sub-groups of the district policing partnership in Belfast. I said that, if the Government decided to amend the Bill—we indicated that we were considering doing so—we would do so on Report. New clause 3 will make that amendment. The Government concluded that, with an area the size of Belfast, it made sense to establish not four separate DPPs, as some have called for, but four sub-groups of the Belfast DPP, to be established by the council. Each sub-group is to consist of at least six members of the partnership, appointed by the partnership. The Policing Board's code of practice under clause 19 will cover the operation of those sub-groups. Their function will be to provide views to the police and to the partnership. As the new clause stands, it refers in line 4 to "the Board". That should, of course, be "the partnership". That will be corrected in the other place. By tabling the new clause, we have implemented Patten's recommendation in paragraph 6.27 of the commission's report, but we have done so in a way that recognises the concerns that have been expressed about the make-up of those sub-groups and how their role will tie in with that of the Belfast DPP. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the new clause.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister mentioned the relationship between the sub-groups and the Belfast DPP as a whole. To what extent will the sub-groups work with the partnership and to what extent will they take over functions from the partnership? Those questions raise a series of issues on which the new clause gives no information, but which are matters of great concern to us. The Minister should deal with those issues in some detail.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because it is important for hon. Members to understand the way in which the DPPs will operate, which is in terms of the codes of practice that will be laid down by the Policing Board and conditioned by the Secretary of State's consideration of how they are actually operating. For instance, if a district is not delivering as it should, the Secretary of State will involve himself in that area. Let me deal with the specific point raised by the right hon. Gentleman; the four sub-groups will report to the Belfast DPP and their work will be conditioned by the other clauses under which the DPPs come under the scrutiny of both the Policing Board and the Secretary of State. They will not be four entities in their own right, but four sub-groups that report to the central DPP.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I apologise if I have not got the details right, but the new clause states: The function of each sub-group shall be to provide views to the district commander of the sub-group's police district. When one compares that to clause 16, which covers the general functions of DPPs, it is in line with clause 16(1)(a). Is it intended that the sub-groups simply take over from the Belfast DPP in that function only, and consequently will have no function in regard to clause 16(1)(a)-(e)? If that is the case, it would be well for the House to know that, However, the language that the Minister used implied that the sub-groups will take over all the functions of the DPPs and simply report to the Belfast partnership.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

No. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that that would not be the case. They would be not separate entities in their own right, but four sub-groups reporting to the DPP, conditioned obviously by the way in which the board interfaces with that and the way in which the Secretary of State can, in consultation with the board and under his own powers, deal with it. The sub-groups will be an integral part of the Belfast DPP and will report to that district partnership. It is important to understand that they will have purely consultative functions. All the functions of the Belfast DPP remain as for the other DPPs. There is no difference between Belfast DPP and the other equivalent DPPs that will be set up under the structures envisaged. The sub-groups have no role in the local policing plan for Belfast. That remains the responsibility of the Belfast DPP. In that sense, the groups are consultative. The right hon. Gentleman has concerns about the way in which the groups could have developed. Clearly, there was an argument that there should have been four separate entities in that area. That is the way that some people interpreted Patten; that is not what Patten said, and we have been faithful to what he said. I hope that I have given the right hon. Gentleman assurances about the way in which the sub-groups of the DPP will function. Government amendment No. 213 is a consequential amendment arising from one that was accepted in Committee on the membership of the direct rule Policing Board. Columns 38 to 45 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B contain references to that matter. The Committee accepted that, during direct rule, there should be between 14 and 19 members on the Policing Board. The amendment alters schedule 1(3)(2) to reflect the fact that, instead of one number, there is now a set of numbers. We want a sliding-scale approach. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the amendment. Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216 honour a commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) in Committee—I said in column 94 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B that I would table amendments on Report. These amendments affect paragraph (4)(5) of schedule 1, which sets out the provisions for removal from the board during direct rule. Amendment No. 215 provides that removal for a criminal conviction applies to convictions after the date of appointment. Amendment No. 216 adds to that provision by enabling the Secretary of State to remove a person from the board for non-disclosure of a criminal conviction at the time of appointment. We will want to table similar amendments in the other place for a board set up under the devolved structure. Here, we are dealing only with that set up under the direct rule structure. Similar amendments were made and accepted by the Committee on exactly this issue in relation to the DPPs, as can be seen from column 212 of the Official Report. I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They honour commitments made in Committee. On Government amendment No. 218, in Committee on Tuesday 27 June—Official Report columns 114 to 118—I said that the Government would produce amendments to clarify the position on quorums both for appointments of the second and subsequent chairperson and vice-chairperson posts, which are dealt with in schedule 1(17)(2), and the numbers required to determine an inquiry under paragraph (17)(4), which of course relates to a board set up under a devolved Government. Government amendment No. 218 meets that commitment and I ask the House to accept it.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I shall speak to the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench—amendments Nos. 303 to 307. In the limited time available to the House due to the guillotine motion, I shall restrict my remarks to those amendments, which centre on who should sit on the Policing Board and on the district policing partnerships. It should be common ground on both sides of the House and in all parts of the House that it cannot be right and proper for people who have committed violent criminal and terrorist offences, or who are associated with terrorist groups that have not entered a ceasefire, to sit on the board or the partnerships. I hope that it is not necessary to dwell at any length on how security sensitive sitting on the board or the partnerships will be. Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, and for that matter other members of the security forces and Ministers, would be put in an impossible position if people were sitting on the partnerships and the board who were not committed to peaceful means of pursuing their political ends. If officers refused to give information to the board or partnership because they were scared of the security implications, the very working of the board and the workings of the partnerships would be put in doubt. The House should accept our amendments. It is inconceivable that such people should be involved in the board or the partnerships. Let me expand a little: first, we are insisting that political representatives—elected politicians—who are associated with paramilitaries can sit on the board or the partnerships only if the paramilitaries to whom they are inextricably linked have started properly and comprehensively to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. The Minister will confirm that they are legally obliged to do so under the Belfast agreement, which they signed. Whereas I would have no objection to the names of people who are to sit on the board and the partnerships being made public, I feel that they should not be able to take their seats until their paramilitary associates have moved considerably towards fulfilling their obligations under the agreement to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives. Secondly, anyone sitting on the board or on a partnership must, both in practice and in word, have renounced violence in all its forms for good. I note that that applies to members of the board and of the partnerships who are not elected representatives; obviously, it must also apply to those who are elected. 7 pm Probably the most important aspect of our amendments is that which relates to people who—in simple layman's language—are committed terrorists. It seems wrong that anyone who has been found guilty of committing a terrorist offence should sit on the board or a partnership. When the Bill was published, it was made clear that, although elected representatives who had committed scheduled offences could sit on those bodies, lay members who had committed such offences could not do so. That was changed in Committee, as the Minister will confirm. That is regrettable. It is wrong that someone who was a committed terrorist can sit on a police board or body. I hope that, when the Minister reflects on that point, he will agree and that our amendments will be accepted. I offer the Minister and the Secretary of State a gentle warning that, if the amendments are not passed, there will be no confidence in the new policing system—neither in the boards nor the partnerships. The partnerships will not work properly and security will be put at risk in the Province and on the mainland; the Minister is responsible for security in the Province and I know that is the last thing that he wants. I hope that he will realise that our amendments are moderate, sensible and realistic; they should be incorporated in the Bill.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I shall be brief, so that we can move on to other matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that many of the amendments are technical, and indeed they are. The amendments that I have tabled are straightforward. They would provide further reassurance to those people—in the House and elsewhere—who are concerned because the Bill does not fully reflect the recommendations of the Patten report, either in regard to openness and transparency or in ensuring the implementation of several issues relating to the establishment of district policing partnerships and the Policing Board. The amendments would set a timetable for the DPPs—for the commencement of their powers, for their nominations and appointments and for the consultations held by the Secretary of State on those appointments. The second thrust of the amendments is to ensure that there is openness and transparency in the operation of the DPPs. They provide that the partnerships meet in public, that members of the public can put questions to the district police commander, and that there is full and open consultation on policies that have regard to the overall community. The amendments would ensure that the composition of the DPPs is balanced and that the appointments of the chair and vice-chair of the board are made with the maximum involvement and consultation and have the support of all parties in the Assembly—and, especially, of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The amendments would strengthen the powers of the board in the establishment of DPPs. The amendments are technical and relatively uncontentious. I welcome this opportunity for the Government to consider those matters before the Bill makes its way to the other place. The amendments strengthen the commitment to openness and transparency, while securing a timetable for the implementation of the Bill's provisions on DPPs.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 59 to 63. They have been tabled to tidy up the fairly flawed provisions on district policing partnerships. It will come as no secret to Ministers that I oppose the whole concept of such partnerships as detailed in the Bill. We all know that the lowest tier of government is the most difficult place in which to control political ambition. The DPPs will be devised so that they reflect the electoral strengths of district councils, but individuals from those areas will be added to them. Such is the spread—or lack of spread—of population across the political divide in some parts of Northern Ireland, that the lowest common denominator will rule the day if we run with these DPPs. Such is the progress of the Bill that that is inevitable. We want to put some constraints and controls on the DPPs. Clause 15 provides that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a district council has failed to comply with…section 14(1) he can take certain steps to remedy the matter. That power is not broad enough, although I am not usually someone who argues for more powers for the Secretary of State. Although it appears that the provision places that condition only on district councils, I do not believe that is what would happen. The political members of DPPs will come from the district councils; they will be nominated and selected under the d'Hondt system. If there is constant disruption and the DPPs do not fulfil a positive and constructive function, there should be some redress. It may not be possible to seek such redress from the DPPs, but it should be possible to ensure that district councils are subject to responsibilities and constraints for those whom they nominate to represent them on DPPs. We suggest that the narrow provision that applies only to section 14(1) should be deleted and that the conditions that should apply should extend to the whole of part III. That would ensure that community activists such as those in the Omagh district—to whom I referred in Committee—who work voluntarily with the police, trying to represent society so that policing can function, are not bullied and browbeaten—if not physically beaten—by members of Sinn Fein, led by a Sinn Fein councillor. I gave full details of that incident in Committee, so I shall not repeat them. Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 are technical. I hope that the Government will accept them because they tidy up the Bill. Amendment No. 59 would amend clause 16, which says that the district policing partnerships shall have regard to a code of practice. We want them to "comply with" a code of practice. I think that in fact they must be bound to comply with a code of practice—otherwise, why would we have a code of practice? Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would amend clause 19, which says: The Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice… I do not believe that it was intended for the board to have an option whether or not to provide and issue a code of practice. I believe that the wording that was intended—our amendment would achieve this—was: The Board shall, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice and so on. Most of our amendments are technical, and I hope that the Government will take them into consideration as a means of tightening up the legislation. I also hope that the Minister will consider the too, too narrow basis on which the Secretary of State is to make a judgment as to how district councils fulfil their function. It is not just that they have a responsibility to appoint political members to the DPPs, but that they have a responsibility to ensure that those members whom they do appoint fulfil the functions and the conditions that are contained in the rest of part III. I shall turn briefly to the amendments that originated from the Conservative Front Bench, and simply and without further elaboration say that they appeal to us. We believe that they reflect some of those things that are necessary if DPPs are not to become the focus for dissension and disruption and, indeed, for the impeding of police in the execution of their duties to the whole of society in the areas concerned. The Government will not be surprised, therefore, to hear me say that I am totally opposed to what is contained in new clause 3. I do not want to suggest that this is a sleight of hand, but if it is not, it is the next best thing to that. It is very clearly stated in clause 14: Each district council shall establish for its district a body to be known as the district policing partnership. It makes no sense whatever that Belfast, any more than Craigavon, Derry City or any other larger urban area, should be subdivided in terms of its district policing partnership differently from what happens within the city council itself. 7.15 pm The Government may argue that because Belfast has in excess of 500,000 people, and as four local areas of command meet within the city, there should be four sub-committees of the district policing partnership. I hope that the Government will explain why they think that it would be a good thing, in a city that is divided and ghettoised as a result of 30 years of violence, to have one area of the city with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively republican population and another area with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively Unionist population. Is it not the desire of the Government that we move forward—that people stop thinking rigidly, antagonistically and confrontationally in terms of their own tradition? Is it not a fact that people should be reflecting on how the city council area of Belfast can be policed in a way that ensures uniformity, consistency and fair play for each and every citizen? If the Government—I doubt that they will dissent from what I have just suggested—believe that that is the case, why on earth would they want to subdivide a district policing partnership in which huge differences of opinion will have to be accommodated, and can be accommodated only if the individual members are willing to work constructively together? If there are to be sub-committees, something needs to be said about whether they represent exclusively the tradition that dominates the area that a sub-committee represents, or whether the sub-committees would themselves have some sort of d'Hondt formulation, whereby each would reflect the main DPP overall—but the Bill quite simply does not do that. Instead, it panders, and panders dangerously, to sectarian and partisan points of view. That is a danger. We were given the impression on Second Reading and in Committee—indeed, until we saw new clause 3—that that would not happen. That is one reason why we should have more time to discuss the Bill, because this sort of surprise is more than a surprise—it is an inherent danger for the whole of society in Northern Ireland if, merely to satisfy a sectarian or political demand, we divide our population in this way. If the Minister wants to find justification in Patten, I should draw attention to the fact that one thing that Patten made very clear was that the RUC was to be a unitary police service. It will not be a unitary police service if it is to be divided into 26—plus now another three in Belfast—virtually autonomous areas, none of which, under the proposals in the Bill, has any conjunction with surrounding local areas of command. If the divisional police stratum of command had remained, the local areas of command would have been conjoined to a degree. We have to remember that it was the present Chief Constable who proposed that divisional areas should be done away with. If we are to do away with divisional areas, the Chief Constable, to put it bluntly, has no right to do away with regional areas. A larger number of local areas of command could be coalesced under a regional command structure. I hope that I have demonstrated not only the folly and the inept drafting but the inherent danger that derives from the new clause. I do not believe that an area of half a million people is too large to be dealt with under one body, just as every other council area is. If the Minister believes that there is some justification for what he proposes, he has to tell us how he will ensure that in an area such as republican west Belfast, predominantly Sinn Fein influence is not exerted on the police. Similarly for other parts of Belfast, where there is a different influence, the Minister has to explain to us what precautions he will put in place. The new clause is dangerous, especially for an urban area such as Belfast where crime does not observe any boundary. The drug trafficking that the Minister will hear me speak about again and again and all the other social abuses, such as protection rackets and everything else, are not sicknesses that observe boundaries. The germ of criminality spreads far and wide across the boundaries. I ask the Minister to consider not pressing this particular new clause to a vote this evening. It has been sprung on us, so we have not had time to consider it. It is full of danger, and the Minister would do well to look again at whether what is being created could be the catalyst for dissension within the city of Belfast.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I rise to support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on new clause 3. It really ought to be considered again. We have grave concerns about it. Earlier, I asked the Minister just what the relationship between the sub-groups and the partnership would be. I did not appear to get a clear answer from him, despite the notes that were passed to him. Perhaps, now that he has had time to collect his thoughts more fully on the issue, he will go into the relationship between one and the other in greater detail. That ought to be teased out at length rather than rushed into the Bill at this last minute. The Minister must recognise that there is real concern on our Benches that the new clause is a means of returning to the original proposal, to which we took strong exception, that Belfast should be split into four DPPs. We thought that that was a very serious mistake that would have serious consequences for the effectiveness of policing in the area. It would sectarianise policing in Belfast, and that would be a retrograde step. 7.30 pm New clause 3 brings the danger that the Government, having realised that the original proposal was mistaken and having moved to a more sensible position, are now heading back by a roundabout route to their original mistake. That is why we need to know much more. This bears particularly on two of the amendments that we have mentioned. In reply to my intervention, the Minister referred to the code of practice. We would love to see the code of practice being an effective safeguard in this matter, but the Bill does not make it so. The code of practice is something that the board may make; it is under no duty, as the Bill is drafted, to do so. If the board does make a code of practice, the DPPs are simply to "have regard to" it. "Have regard to" is a fairly weak link on this matter. Our amendments would put the board under a duty to make a code of practice and require the DPPs to comply with it. They would bring about precisely the situation that the Minister hinted at in reply to my intervention, by saying that the code of practice could make provisions which would regulate these matters. It cannot regulate them unless there is a duty to make the code of practice and a duty to comply with it. From the point of view of achieving what the Minister himself set out, he should accept our amendments. I wish to make some general points, touching on the existence of DPPs and on district council areas as the relevant local area of command in policing terms. One wonders about the coherence of that idea. In Northern Ireland we have 26 district councils, some of them very small. At the other end of the spectrum, we have larger ones, such as Belfast. I hesitate, lest I incur the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to point out that Belfast has a population of 300,000, not 500,000, unless my hon. Friend knows something about changes to Belfast's boundaries that I do not know. The borough that I represent, Craigavon, has a population of 100,000. Lisburn has a population of over 100,000. Derry city has a population of over 100,000. Is there so much difference between 100,000 and 300,000? Why, then, break up Belfast? The borough of Craigavon has two local areas of command, the sub-divisional area of Portadown and the sub-divisional area for Lurgan. From what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, I have the impression that there may be similar arrangements within Derry city council as well. There is a question here about consistency. Then there is the question of what happens if, for example, there is a change in district council boundaries. This legislation relates to the number of district councils. Although no change in their number has been proposed, I have seen speculation in the press. For example, there was an interesting proposal in the editorial column of The Irish News several months ago suggesting that, instead of 26 councils, there should be only 14 or 15 in Northern Ireland. I do not know who inspired the editor of The Irish News to write that; it was certainly not me. Let us say for the sake of argument that that happened. The legislation would then automatically roll through and reduce Northern Ireland to 15 or 16 local areas of command and 15 or 16 DPPs. I notice that heads are nodding on the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to say anything about how they are nodding! I take it that they are nodding in agreement and that the situation I have described is a consequence that the Government are entirely comfortable with. That leads one to wonder why we have this arrangement. The Minister knows that one of our concerns about the district council areas being the local areas of command for policing is that there is then no tier within the police service between the local areas of command and headquarters in Belfast, or wherever it happens to be. We are concerned, as are others, about the effectiveness of policing; and this situation exposes a serious danger of a weakness in the command structure within the police service, a greater tendency for the local areas to act independently, and consequently a greater danger that the police officer in charge of each local area will be under undue pressure from a politically motivated DPP. That danger would be minimised if we had an effective structure within the police service. I know that over the years there has been an argument about the divisional command. Stripping out the divisional command has been suggested; from time to time even her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has referred to that. Why not, then, provide a regional structure with, say, the equivalent of two or three assistant chief constables grouping the local areas of command so as to provide an effective structure? It is important that, as Patten recommended, we retain a unitary structure within the police service. That is endangered by the proposals before us. I should like to hear the Minister directly address that point. Another matter of concern at the other end of the spectrum is local areas. We have an extensive structure of local police and community liaison groups. Obviously, with that structure, the community police liaison committees are somewhat uneven, but they bring local communities together, particularly communities that have significant problems. I do not wish to identify the area in question, but in my constituency I know of two housing estates with serious problems. They have formed their own CPLC, which brings together a number of community groups that interact with the local police officers very effectively. Such CPLCs will disappear. Clause 16(1)(c) says that the DPPs shall make arrangements for obtaining— the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the district. It is possible within those terms to make arrangements to hear the views of people in particular localities. That should be encouraged. Perhaps it could be covered in a code of practice, but if the code of practice does not have to be made and is not binding, there is not much point in making that provision. I worry about all the good people in a number of localities who are engaged in handling serious problems in their neighbourhoods. In dealing with criminality and anti-social activity, which are serious problems in some areas, they will now find that the structure they have depended on to try to improve policing in their area will disappear and be replaced by an excessively politicised structure at district council level that does not effectively reach down into local communities. It is not good enough to say that community groups can go to see the DPP. That does not meet the need. I am reluctant to go into greater detail, because we are so short of time, but there is a serious gap in the legislation, unless it is properly covered by codes of practice. I have heard nothing about that, however, and my colleagues who were on the Committee recall no discussion there dealing specifically with the matter. As I said at the beginning, unless those codes of practice are binding on DPPs and it is mandatory for the board to make them, they will not be effective; they will not be a tool to ensure that this local layer is in place and that the Minister's assurances on the sub-groups in Belfast are implemented.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 62 and 63, tabled by the Ulster Unionist party. Amendment No. 62 deals with the great danger that we see in the district policing partnership, which we believe will put the district police commander under great pressure, take up a great deal of his time and, indeed, make policing more difficult than it is now. Hence amendment No. 62 would insert a new subsection, which states: Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing. Although community relations and seeking the views of the community are useful, they should not in any way compromise the effectiveness of the police in the area. That is why we tabled the amendment. Amendment No. 63 is designed to ensure that the Policing Board would produce a yearly report on the effectiveness of policing. That report should also include comments on the effectiveness of the district police partnerships, how they operate, how they are received and how they affect good policing in a particular area. The amendment would make it part of the board's remit to report on the effectiveness of district policing partnerships, and on the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships. That is essential. There should be continual supervision of the district policing partnerships so that they do not compromise proper and effective policing.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The reasoned amendment on Second Reading tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) expressed the Conservative party's deep anxieties about the prospect of the political representatives of paramilitary organisations sitting on the policing board and the district policing partnerships without the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives having started. We also expressed our anxieties about inadequate safeguards against people convicted of terrorist offences serving on the Policing Board or the DPPs. We did not vary our stance on Second Reading or in Committee and we have not done so on Report. Earlier, my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear who should not serve on the bodies and why they should not serve on them. He spoke in support of amendments No. 303 to 307, and we were subsequently pleased to receive the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the Ulster Unionist party for those five amendments. At no stage this evening—perhaps we will not hear it at any stage—have we heard any convincing rebuttal of the arguments behind the amendments. I hope that it is not too much to ask the Minister to recognise the force of my right hon. Friend's arguments, which have been consistently maintained since Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will give us a pleasant surprise by accepting the amendments.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We have a cluster of amendments before us, and it will be difficult to deal with all aspects of them. However, I shall try to work through them in a logical and structured fashion. Before I come to the amendments, it is important to consider the debate that we have had on Government new clause 3. I gave an indication in Committee of how the Government were thinking, so the new clause should not have come as a surprise. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested that it was a new concept, but I gave notice in Committee that we were thinking along those lines. We have reflected that thinking, and given the points that we made in Committee, reference should have been made to the Patten report. I also tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not limiting the time for this debate; I am quite prepared to continue it. That may mean that we cannot debate other issues, but I am happy to debate this issue to a conclusion, because I recognise that it is important.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I remind the Minister that my surprise was not of my own making. It derived from the fact that when the Secretary of State referred to Belfast in the debate on the Patten report, he said: I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 847.] What the Secretary of State has given us is an apology for four separate partnerships—and he knows it.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not accept that assertion at all. I said that the matter was alluded to in Committee. Members of the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) have made a great song and dance about the need to debate this measure, but they are not here. For whatever reason, they have absented themselves from the Chamber. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all parties—perhaps with the exception of those that are not here now—have made representations, and in the discussions, we have sought to find points of common ground. That fact was reflected in the changes made in Committee. All parties in Committee moved amendments, and we have amended the Bill based on reasoned consideration of the arguments put forward. I cannot enter into a debate about the future of the district council structure, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The councils are no longer a matter for the United Kingdom Government. It is for the Assembly on which he serves to determine what the structure should be. If the structure evolves and develops in a particular way, that is an issue for the Assembly. As the Bill stands, there is provision for 26 councils. However, we anticipate that two or three small councils may wish to come together. That is allowed for if they wish it and if everyone is satisfied that that is the way forward. Rearrangement of the existing structure can take place if there is agreement. I do not accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that new clause 3 was not explained, but I shall explain it further, to help him to appreciate what we are doing. The Belfast district policing partnership, out of which will come the four sub-groups, will continue to have the powers set out in clause 16. Those are the same as for all other DPPs; there is no difference between Belfast and anywhere else. Those powers will not be delegated to the four sub-groups; there is no delegation of powers on that basis. The sub-groups will remain subordinate to the main Belfast DPP and they will have the function of providing views and holding discussions with the local police commander. They will also offer to the main Belfast DPP views on policing in their areas. As I said earlier, the sub-groups will have no role in the main planning process for Belfast except in offering views to the Belfast DPP, of which they are an integral part. The local police planning function is for the Belfast DPP as a whole. There is no question of transferring power down to the sub-groups in that way. They have certain limited functions.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Am I right in thinking that a DPP can delegate its responsibilities to a committee and give it the powers of the partnership? Can that happen in this case? Furthermore, the Minister has referred to six nominees to a partnership, so why does he not insist that three are elected and three are independent members?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, that is how the Bill can apply. Of course, there must be sensible arrangements to ensure the best and maximum point of contact and the best communications at local level between the local community and the police and vice versa. That is the underlying principle of the Bill, and it seeks to achieve that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with the principle that the local community should engage with the local police. The problem in too many areas of Northern Ireland is that the local community does not engage with the police—[Interruption.] Well, to find ways to encourage that to happen was obviously one of the underlying motives and drivers of the Patten report and of what we are seeking to deliver. As for the four sub-divisions of Belfast, there are already four police districts in Belfast. Clause 20 makes provision for police districts and the way in which they will be established. Each district commander should deal with a specific sub-group of the Belfast district policing partnership. That goes back to the point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman about the need for a close relationship with the local district commander, which concerns effective community policing as well as effective accountability for policing. The further that is from the reality on the street, the less effective it is. As set out in new clause 3, each sub-group will have six members, so individual members of the DPP will be represented on more than one sub-group. The partnership itself will appoint members of the sub-group. As the Government do not intend to intervene in any way whatever, that is in effect a devolution of responsibility. If the Government intervened and were heavy-handed, that would work against the very principle which, I would have thought, we all seek to achieve. I repeat that the provision is about consultation on policing, not sectarian head counts, as has been suggested, or the cantonisation of policing.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

May I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), as there is an inconsistency in the Government's approach to the Policing Board for Northern Ireland and to individual district policing partnerships. The Bill contains elaborate provisions to ensure balance, and make sure that the board is representative of the Assembly, the partnerships of the district councils, and so on. The Government are not reluctant to impose on the Assembly and the local councils provisions that ensure balance. Why, then, is there no provision to ensure balance in the sub-groups? Why does the Minister forswear the desire to have balance there? It is important that that issue is addressed, as it would help to restore confidence if we were sure that the sub-groups were reflective of the partnership as a whole, and that the door was not being opened to the creation of sub-groups that were not representative of the partnership as a whole, which would lead to sectarianisation or cantonisation of the sub-groups.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

They will certainly not be cantonised in the terms suggested. The provision is not about the cantonisation of the sub-groups, any more than it is about the cantonisation of policing. There are two ways of approaching the matter. One could take a heavy-handed, interfering approach—[Interruption.] I am trying to deal with this debate, but the right hon. Member for Upper Bann keeps shouting at me from a sedentary position. I cannot hear what he is saying, but it is a bit off-putting. I am trying to work through his last question, but he is not letting me get 10 words out before he starts disagreeing with my explanation. We are seeking to establish, in the hands either of the board or of the Secretary of State, powers proportionate to the body to which those powers relate. Those bodies are low-level, and I have tried to set out the fact that they are concerned with local consultation. They do not have the powers of the DPPs. If the Government were to ride in and say that we wanted a certain type of representation, that would be very heavy-handed and would work against the principle of devolution itself. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann may believe that we should interfere, and wish that we would, in every aspect of Northern Ireland society. However, that is not my view, as it runs counter to the principle of devolution and to all the representations concerning the relative powers of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable that we received when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 was being considered. The same tripartite structure applies here. Representations were made about the Secretary of State having too much power, and we are trying to ensure that the powers provided for are proportionate to the level of responsibility. I am now being asked to apply a heavy-handed approach, which is inconsistent.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall, but we have a lot of progress to make.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister again, but he has not answered the question. All I said was that he was being inconsistent. He stands at the Dispatch Box saying that he does not want to be heavy-handed, but he is being heavy-handed on the composition of the board, as he has been on the composition of the partnerships. Why does the principle of representative character not flow through to the sub-groups?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We must look at the size of the sub-groups. The way in which these bodies are set up means that the DPP itself must take that sort of view into account. However, if we are over-prescriptive, that militates against the principle that the provision is about people's local communities. DPPs and the sub-groups will not be successful if they become bodies set up on the basis of sectarian head-counts, as there will be no co-operation across the community divide. I do not believe that there is an inconsistency, as we must seek to ensure that the level of decision making is proportionate to the body being set up. In a sense, we are dealing with a low-level body which has certain points of interface with the police. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is shaking his head. However, many people in Northern Ireland will not co-operate with the current policing structure. If we say that we have to be prescriptive and insist on a certain structure, the result will be abstentionism. If we decided not to have either the DPP or the sub-groups, what would be lost? We must ensure that the police have that point of contact in their community. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised the issue of regional commands. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in one sense, I have more respect for the Chief Constable, for the way in which his views could impact on my thought process about the proper structures for policing in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable is highly respected and extremely professional, and has accepted the concept of district commands and the eventual removal of the regional tier. The provision is therefore consistent with what he believes to be effective and efficient policing.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the Minister's justification for accepting the Chief Constable's advice over that of my hon. Friends and myself not conflict with his huge desire to take advice on policing from ex-terrorists who will be members of the district policing partnership? Does the Minister regard my hon. Friends and myself less highly because we do not have that qualification?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not conscious of having taken advice of that nature. The hon. Gentleman claims that I have taken such advice, but it may surprise those whom he calls ex-terrorists to hear that they have ready access to me and can influence my thought processes. I see no evidence of that. We have taken account of the views expressed by all the political parties that have sought to make representations on the matter. I could spend longer on new clause 3 if required, but we have probably exhausted our examination of it. I have set out what I believe to be a reasoned response to the issues that have been raised. There will be one Belfast DPP and four sub-groups, which will respond to the main DPP. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

What about the community police liaison committees?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

For CPLCs, the DPPs will have a responsibility to seek to set up local arrangements and to look for ways in which they can penetrate the wider community and be truly representative, and we will encourage that. The DPPs will not be omnipotent bodies, and they should not sit in their ivory towers and claim that they are the only people who understand policing. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the need to ensure that the point of contact is as close as possible to the direct interface. We cannot be prescriptive about that and say that the focus should be on a cluster of, say, four streets. To return to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we cannot even say that the CPLCs should be representative. In Northern Ireland, the sub-divisions in a particular area such as a cluster of streets are such that it may be very hard to achieve cross-community representation. That in itself does not damage the point of contact between a particular community and the police; its success will depend on the way in which the community deals with its interface with the police, which will be conditioned by the thought processes of the DPPs as they take account of views that are expressed. Those views may be one-sided, but in their consideration of them the DPPs should ask themselves whether or not there is a balance. Amendment No. 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), would place a time limit on district councils, giving them six months to establish a DPP. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, also in my hon. Friend's name, would impose further time limits requiring the council to appoint political members within six months, and the board to appoint independents within one month of receipt of nominations. I am not convinced that those would be wise or necessary moves. The Patten report made it clear that arrangements should be put in place to facilitate constant dialogue at local levels between the police and the community. We support that vision of the future of policing, and part III will enable it to happen. However, we do not think it necessary to establish time limits now, as we cannot be certain how long the arrangements will reasonably take. For example, the board needs to be appointed before it can consider and approve its code for DPPs. It is also to be consulted, among others, about the Secretary of State's code on appointments. There will then be an appointments process, which our experience of public appointments leads us to think may take from three to six months, depending on when it is run. We are embarking on a new process, and wrinkles will need to be identified before they can be ironed out. Furthermore, the council will need time to make its decisions on nominations. That all points to a commitment that appointments, independent and political, will be made as soon as possible, but also to a recognition that that could take longer than the amendments anticipate, depending on the starting point. There is a safeguard in clause 15 that gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene; for example, if a district council fails to establish a DPP for its district, he can direct it to comply. If those arrangements are to work, all council areas must play their part and each council area must have a means of promoting and facilitating community-police consultation. Although I would be sympathetic to the desire to introduce a time scale in other contexts, I do not believe, for the reasons that I have set out, that it would be practical in this case. I hope that amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 20 will not be pressed to a vote. Amendment No. 56, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke, would extend the power given to the Secretary of State in clause 15 which enables him to intervene where a district council fails to establish a DPP. The amendment would require him to take action where a council failed to comply with any of the part III arrangements. In Committee there were many criticisms about the heavy-handed involvement of the Secretary of State in the Bill's provisions. The Government do not accept those criticisms, but we have taken account of the arguments about the relationships between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. We have sought to take a balanced approach, and we have given the Secretary of State powers and provided safeguards where we believe that they are necessary and justified. We felt that it was imperative to ensure that a default power was provided in case councils failed to establish DPPs. However, on the general functions of DPPs and their obligations to report to councils and the board, with which the amendment deals, we are not convinced that the Secretary of State needs, or should have, further powers to intervene. Again, we seek to create proportionate powers. We believe that those are more appropriately matters for the board and the council to tackle. That is why we have provided for the board to set the functions and powers in a code, and why its powers dovetail with those of the DPPs. It is also why it can override DPPs under clause 15, and in setting up local consultative arrangements under clause 22. That relates to the argument about CPLCs advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are also considering suggestions made in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to add more comment on and assessment of DPPs to the matters that the board is to cover in its annual report. I remind hon. Members that the functions of DPPs are purely consultative. The powers affecting them should therefore be proportionate, and the amendment does not achieve that objective, so I hope that hon. Members will not press it to a vote. I turn now to amendments Nos. 59 to 61, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also spoke. I know from his comments in Committee that he has deep concerns about the operation of DPPs, and he has expressed those concerns again tonight. Through amendment No. 59 he seeks to require DPPs to comply with the code of practice on the exercise of their powers and functions rather than to have regard to it. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would require the board to issue that code of practice and permit it to be revised from time to time. I shall deal with the latter issue first. The hon. Gentleman showed in Committee that he favours what I would define as prescriptive, rather than discretionary, powers and would therefore like to bind the DPPs, the board and the Secretary of State at every turn.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

indicated assent.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman nods his agreement that he would like the process to develop in that way. The important point is that the functions of the boards are clearly set out. The code will be a translation into guidance of those functions. Clause 16 clearly sets out the functions. We have also stated that the DPPs shall report to the district council and that they shall report to the board. Notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that the board will issue a code of practice covering the exercise by DPPs of their powers and functions, and indeed we plan to give the board a draft code from which to work. We envisage that the DPPs will, in the early days of their operation, need that code and find it most useful. As they begin to develop their own knowledge and become more experienced, they will require less guidance from the Secretary of State. We genuinely believe that that is the way in which the Bill should be constructed. We are not convinced that a requirement for a code is justified. I ask the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press for a vote on amendments Nos. 59 to 61. As I have mentioned, the functions are clear in clause 16. The code of practice gives guidance on the exercise of them. We need to understand that adherence to the guidance cannot be too prescriptive. Flexibility will be needed so that each council area is able to adapt the best practice set out in the code in a way which suits its own needs. Tight compliance is not, therefore, sensible. As we stated in Committee, what could be best practice in Moyle district, for example, may not necessarily be best practice in another district. Flexibility is a desirable approach. A too prescriptive approach would tie down the ways in which these bodies could operate. The code cannot override the statutory functions in clause 16. It cannot take away that which is set out in the Bill. If it had to be complied with, the board could stray beyond the clause and the DPPs would be asked and expected to extend beyond their powers. There is nothing underhand about the way in which we are approaching these issues. It is about saying where respective powers should rest. That is a further argument against amendment No. 59, which I hope will convince the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press it to a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke to amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 16 places a duty upon DPPs to hold all meetings in public. As we discussed in Committee, the amendment goes well beyond the Patten report, which recommended in paragraph 6.37 a meeting in public once a month. We have provided for the Patten recommendation to be implemented by the Policing Board issuing a code to the partnerships, on the exercise of their functions, under clause 19. The clause lists the areas to be covered by the code, including procedures for meetings and public meetings. While partnerships should operate in an open manner, the chairperson should have discretion to hold parts of the meeting in private or to remove the public. I shall give the House an example. A district commander may be talking about the building of a new police station. That may have implications for land price. He may want to give some advice or knowledge to the DPP. If the meeting were held in public, that might lead to speculation. We do not believe that the standard approach should be meetings in camera, but there may be occasions when that happens. The requirement suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that all meetings should be in public would militate against that. I ask him not to press amendment No. 16 to a Division. Amendment No. 17 seeks to provide that the code of practice will cover the arrangements for enabling DPP members and the public to ask the police questions about the discharge of their functions and police operations in the district. In paragraph 6.30 the Patten report recommended meetings between the DPP and the district commander at which the police would present reports and answer questions, and the partnership would reflect community concerns and priorities to the police. The report recommends also that questions by the public should go through the chair. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is seeking to insert in the Bill a considerable amount of detail which we believe is more appropriately dealt with in the code of practice. Clause 19(3) specifically provides for the issues mentioned in the amendment to be dealt with in the code. We believe that the code is a much more sensible approach to what was envisaged and set out in the Patten report. I ask my hon. Friend not to proceed to Divisions on his amendments. A complicated range of issues are raised by the amendments and I apologise for the time that I have taken. However, important issues are contained within each of the elements that has been raised. Amendment No. 62, which was moved by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, seeks to ensure that nothing in the code of practice will require a district commander to disclose any information which would compromise effective policing. If I interpret the purpose behind the amendment correctly, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to preserve the operational independence of the police. I can assure him that that is already entirely the case. 8.15 pm The Patten report specifically states in paragraph 6.21 that it is the Chief Constable's right and duty to take operational decisions and that no one should direct him how to conduct an operation. The paragraph also points out that police officers, while accountable, must be free to exercise their responsibilities. The Patten report adopted a sensible and powerful view. I have explained that DPPs are consultative bodies. The police may operate as they wish but they are accountable to the community, in this instance through the DPPs. The police have said that they want to work in partnership with the DPPs, which will allow for greater consultation between local communities and the police in identifying concerns and priorities at local level. The code of practice on the functions of DPPs will detail what is expected of the police. However, it is clear that police commanders will not, and should not, be expected to disclose details of on-going operations or criminal investigations. To do so would be entirely wrong. I think that that is what amendment No. 62 is seeking to establish. If so, it is not necessary. We believe that the matter is already covered within the Bill. Amendment No. 63 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), and I do not disagree with its general thrust. Indeed, I gave an assurance in Committee that I would consider an amendment that would require a public satisfaction assessment for DPPs. I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I am taking a legal view on how we can best achieve such assessment. When that has been clarified and the parliamentary draftsmen have advised us on how the provision can be put in place in legal terms, we shall return to the matter in another place. In a sense, I am accepting the amendment in principle once the matter has been clarified. Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, relate to part II of schedule 1, which relates to the constitution of the Policing Board during direct rule immediately after the devolved Government have been suspended. None of us wants to see that eventuality happening. Amendment No. 11 relates to part III, dealing with a board established immediately following devolution. Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the element of flexibility which has been given to the Secretary of State in terms of the representativeness of appointments to the board. Our intention in including such flexibility was not to permit the Secretary of State to appoint at random with no regard to representativeness. It was to acknowledge that there may be occasions when a representative selection of people does not come forward. I have said that there is a sizeable body of opinion in Northern Ireland which does not co-operate with the existing police authority. If there are abstentions and a boycott, how can we deliver on representativeness? Problems would be created. It is important that we have structures and that those who decide not to co-operate should not have the veto in those circumstances. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, when taken together, would require the Secretary of State to consult on first and subsequent appointments to the board, and seek to limit the time for that to three months. Given the way in which the matter has been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, there may be some confusion. The first thing to understand is that the provisions that he is tackling will apply only in very specific circumstances, and that is where devolution is suspended. In this circumstance, sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 applies to enable a board to be established quickly by the Secretary of State, as otherwise there will be a vacuum, with no board at all. We wish to avoid that. There will have been consultation on the appointment of the nine independent members of the devolved board, and the likelihood is that others will be shortlisted at that time. The Secretary of State would undoubtedly seek to appoint the nine who are already serving and up to nine others. A direct rule board can have between 14 and 19 members. There could be up to nine others in those circumstances. That would be done as far as practicable to create a representative board. Who knows who might wish to co-operate and participate as we moved from devolution to direct rule? There would undoubtedly be difficulties, but our assumption would be that the nine independents appointed under devolution would wish to serve on an on-going basis and would therefore automatically be appointed, bringing the strength of the board to between 14 and 19 members. It is important that we could move very quickly in a very unfortunate set of circumstances. It would be wrong to create a vacuum. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments to a vote. Amendment No. 11 places a nominal three-month limit on consultation on appointments of independents to a devolved board and, in effect, would tie the consultation process down. The Government will make appointments to the board as quickly as we can, and we have already established a timetable, with shadow appointments in January. The process will not be helped by absolute time limits that bear no relation to the practicalities of making such appointments. This is not an easy road to tread, as we have experienced when previously encouraging people to serve. To impose strict time limits could prove unhelpful. Amendment No. 9, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, is simply not in keeping with Patten. The amendment would replace appointment of the first chairperson and vice-chairperson of the direct rule board by the Secretary of State, under schedule 1(3)(9), with a provision placing responsibility in the hands of the board and allowing for rotation. Patten said in paragraph 6.14: that the chairperson be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is a very clear direction. Knowing that my hon. Friend supports the general thrust of the Patten commission's report, I suggest that his amendment does not comply with it and that therefore he should not press it to a vote. Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 13, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, would enable persons who were not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to retain their seats on the board, whether during direct rule or devolved government. Absurdly, they would also enable a person who has been excluded from holding the office of Minister in the Assembly not to be disqualified from appointment to the board. That would not be a sensible provision. The Government are not prepared to remove what we believe to be important safeguards in the appointments process. Parliament has already seen fit to enact such safeguards under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I do not for a moment believe that it would be the wish of the House to move back from that position. I would not seek support for the amendments. I turn to amendments Nos. 303 to 307, to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) spoke. We dealt with the matter that they concern on Second Reading and in Committee, and I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to clear up some confusion, which is perhaps only in my mind. He is not prepared for particular people, who have been elected, to serve on the Policing Board, yet he is prepared to allow them to continue to serve as Ministers in a devolved Administration. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that, under the new political settlement, responsible Members of the devolved Assembly should not be allowed to serve on the Policing Board. I take account of his comments on security matters, and so on, but I am sure that the Chief Constable and others will be wholly cognisant of what they should be reporting to the board. They will be reporting not on national security issues but on policing issues relating to the functions of the Policing Board.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I am glad that, at last, it has dawned on the Minister that he might be the only person who is confused. For that I am grateful. Let me again from this Dispatch Box say clearly that we see a distinction between being a Minister in the Executive, responsible for, for instance, education or health, and serving on a police board or in a police partnership. We envisage severe security implications. We need an answer to the following question: is he not concerned that it would be dangerous and wrong for ex-convicted terrorists to have security-sensitive information? I think that he probably is concerned, because he has just admitted that the Chief Constable would be aware that he could give only certain information to the board and partnerships. That seems a great pity; I thought that we wanted the fullest possible information to be given.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have not cleared up the confusion in my mind. In the memorable phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in Committee, the Conservative party seems to hide behind the bush and shake it at the same time. That became a touchstone for those of us who were trying to understand the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman's party. The Conservatives are prepared to accept the political settlement and to have—the right hon. Gentleman should be direct about this—Sinn Fein Members in the Government of Northern Ireland, who could interface with me as the security Minister on matters relating to, let us say, drugs or juvenile justice. There is a substantial interface. Is he saying that I should not talk to such Members about those policing matters? The more that we can encourage representative parties that hitherto have not done so to talk about policing or to talk to representatives of those who express views on policing or police officers, the more that we demonstrate considerable progress.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Does not the Minister realise that there is a difference between what he refers to as the interface between him and any Minister in the Executive on one hand, and people sitting on the board or police partnerships, who will be more than "interfacing"? They will have considerable responsibilities. A proper relationship between the police and the board, which the Minister and I want, and proper relationships between the police and the partnerships can be created only by trust. There is no way that the police can trust ex-terrorist criminals. The Minister must know that. I know it and it is why our amendments should be accepted.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are talking about an interface between the police and the Policing Board or, indeed, between the police and DPPs, just as we are talking about an interface between representatives of, perhaps, more than one party about which the right hon. Gentleman has concerns and myself, given my responsibility for policing in prisons and criminal justice matters. I can limit my discussions and the basis on which I seek to communicate information on our objectives. The wide parameters within which the Policing Board and the DPPs will have responsibility will not include responsibility for national security issues. Such issues are, of course, completely precluded not just under the Northern Ireland Act but under other Acts on the devolved Administrations that this Government have set up. [Interruption.] I cannot deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point if he is speaking to me from a sedentary position. If he wants to make another point, I will give way to him. He does not. The right hon. Gentleman's fear simply does not hold water because such circumstances will not arise. The amendments fail to acknowledge the already extensive disqualification and removal criteria for board members. The Government have provided safeguards that we believe are necessary, strictly proportionate and measured given the political settlement with which we are dealing. Unlike the existing Police Authority for Northern Ireland, members of the board will be required to pass a test of upholding the principles of non-violence and of commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. If they do not, the Secretary of State will be able to remove them. I explained in Committee that there are many other safeguards—we do not need to go into all the details—such as character checks, which are based on the very highest standards of probity and integrity. There is a fundamental difference between the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the Government's view. I am not so sure that we will be able to clear it up; we tried to do so in Committee and on Second Reading. We, from the Government's point of view, are prepared to look at the new political settlement, to move it forward progressively and to implement mechanisms, but let us remember, they will not be delivered as of this evening but at some future point, when, hopefully, the settlement will be further embedded and there will be an even more peaceful environment in Northern Ireland. 8.30 pm We must also put the matter in a particular time scale. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is inconsistent with what the Patten commission sought to achieve—inclusivity, without risking respect for non-violence and the principles of democracy. Those safeguards will be applied rigorously. I therefore do not believe that more safeguards are needed. This evening and on previous occasions, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the relationship with decommissioning. We share some objectives, but decommissioning is a separate test. The Government believe that substantial progress has been made. The right hon. Gentleman's party may not be wholly convinced of that, but we are satisfied that progress has been made, and we want to build on it. Finally, I shall deal with the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Amendment No. 21 requires the council to satisfy itself on a number of fronts before putting nominations to the board. It requires the council to ensure that the district is aware that appointments are to be made, that applications have been invited from the district, that the applications have been carefully considered, and that the final nominations reflect that community. Those are all objectives that the Government share and are exactly the type of issues that the code on appointments will cover. The code will provide guidance to councils on the advertising of independent posts and on interviewing and selection procedures. I said in Committee, and it is worth repeating, that there will be an independent element at both selection and appointment stages.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I appreciate the way in which he is responding to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me. If those are the Government's objectives, as I am sure they are, what is wrong with writing them into the Bill?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Those matters will be covered by the code on appointments. We do not want to clutter the Bill with the minutiae of the management of the system. We leave that for the code, which is flexible and amendable. That is the reason for our approach. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my assurances that the code will cover the situation adequately and the amendment is not required. Amendment No. 21 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the board before providing that two or more councils may establish a single DPP for their district. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the remainder of clause 16, to which the amendment relates, provides that the councils must agree to such an amalgamation. It cannot be imposed. We do not envisage the Secretary of State riding in to bring the councils together. If they want to amalgamate for more convenient management of the area through their interface as a DPP, we have provided for that, and the amendment is not necessary. As I said at the outset, this is a comprehensive group of amendments. I am aware of the time that I have taken, but there are important issues under consideration. I hope that I have answered all the points raised during the debate. I ask the House to support Government new clause 3, and Government amendments Nos. 213, 215, 216 and 218, and to resist all other amendments.

THE COMMISSIONER

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), leave out from second "the" to end and insert— 'process of police reform in Northern Ireland'. Government new clause 5—Reports by the Commissioner. Amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 12, line 29, at end insert— '(1A) Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.'. Government new schedule 1—'The Commissioner—

Appointment etc. of the Commissioner

Terms of reference

Remuneration, pensions, allowances, etc.

Staff

Exercise of functions

Evidence

Finance

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

If the commissioner thinks that certain elements of the legislation do not work or impede progress towards the Government's laudable objectives, will he have the right to make that known in one of his periodic reports? For example, if he thought that the colour of the uniform should be changed to blue to make it more compatible with those of neighbouring police forces, could he make such a recommendation?

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I should like to place on record a sincere welcome for the Minister's announcement that the new clause will introduce into statute the office, terms of reference and conditions of the oversight commissioner. That was not the case in Committee, and it represents an important advance in implementing the Patten recommendations. However, having looked a gift horse in the mouth, as it were, we have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 4 and amendment (a) to new schedule 1. They are designed to ensure that the oversight commissioner enjoys the full role that the Patten commission envisaged for that office. We feel that the implementation of all the Patten recommendations is one of the most important innovations to arise from the independent commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. The oversight commissioner is the safety net—the catch-all. Patten said that that office should not simply involve taking stock and that the review process would provide an important impetus to the process of transformation and a new beginning. I welcome the Government amendments as it is vital that the oversight commissioner engages and ensures that all Patten is implemented. However, our problem, which is covered by our amendments, is that the commissioner's terms of reference are limited to overseeing only those changes in policing that the Government decide. That is a restriction. Although we do not want to give the commissioner carte blanche in everything, he should not be unable to comment on the adequacy of the Government's decisions and recommendations. 9 pm Patten himself referred to those decisions that will be made by Government but the oversight commissioner should not be the only person who cannot comment on Government policy or point out its obvious deficiencies. We have come some way from where we were in Committee, but I would like the Minister to underscore what I think that he said earlier. Can he state unambiguously that the oversight commissioner will be able to comment on Government decisions on police reform when he believes that to be appropriate? If the Minister can give such an undertaking on taking action in reasonable circumstances, I shall happily withdraw our amendments.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I, too, am concerned about the implications of what the Government have done. Patten said that an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations. However, the new clause says: The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference. The terms of reference say that the oversight commissioner will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the changes in policing arrangements and structures decided in the context of the Patten report not those recommended in the Patten report. That important distinction will limit his role to considering only what the Government do rather than what happens in the context of the Patten report. Therefore, it appears that the oversight commissioner will be a messenger for the Government and the Chief Constable, not a guarantor of Patten, which is how we see his role. The Minister must clear up the apparent discrepancy between Patten and both the new clause and the terms of reference. Under Patten, the oversight commissioner was to consider not only legislation, but all other issues in Patten—for example, the drafting of the code of ethics, the establishment of an independent recruitment agency and so on. Will he have a role in the independent study of an alternative to plastic baton rounds in public order situations? I welcome the fact that plastic baton rounds have not been used in the recent disturbances. I hope that that practice will be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to other members of the steering group researching the use of plastic bullets, said that the object was To establish whether a less than lethal alternative to baton rounds is available; and to prepare a strategy for the tactical deployment of public order equipment by the police in Northern Ireland. That is not what Patten said. He said: An immediate and substantial investment should be made in a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round. Patten said that we should get rid of the plastic baton round and find something else, whereas the steering group asked whether there was something else. There is an important distinction between those two, and I should like to know whether the oversight commissioner will be able to look into matters that are not part of the structures of the police or decided on in the context of the Patten report. Will those matters be covered under these new terms of reference? This is an important issue because, judging by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the new clause seems to be a considerable departure from Patten. I hope that, when he replies, he will put my fears, especially about plastic bullets, to rest. I raised the issue of an oversight commissioner on Second Reading and asked for such a position to be put in the statute. I received an undertaking that that would be done in Committee, and I express my thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends for putting the proposal into the legislation. I hope that this very good measure will be made perfect by ending my worries on those two small points.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The amendments are probably unnecessary. The oversight commissioner has been appointed, and the new clause seems like supererogation. Can I persuade the Minister not to listen to the siren voices that say that what goes on in the House does not matter, and that on Northern Ireland issues we must abide by Patten in letter and in spirit to the nth degree? If that were the case, there would be no point coming to the House, because what was happening here would be a charade. The reality is that the House is responsible for legislation, and the extent to which it takes the advice of Patten and his commission is a matter for the House. I suggest to the Minister that he should not contemplate extending the powers or authority of the oversight commissioner beyond what is contained in legislation—beyond what is lawful.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I shall try to be a siren voice. Amendment No. 23 is so meek and mild that I cannot see how it could pose a threat to anyone. It relates to clause 27, under which The Board shall make arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify to secure continuous improvement in…efficiency and effectiveness. I have suggested—very meekly—that Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner. The amendment takes us back to Patten, and to the role of supervision rather than the mild form of oversight proposed by new clause 4. It would also enable us to build on the expertise that the commissioner could use in preparing for improvements in the police service overall. Amendment No. 23 is in the spirit of Patten, and I hope that, if it is not accepted tonight, the Government will give it further consideration.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Let me say for the benefit of my friend the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we are still considering the inclusion of a standard provision relating to the removal of the commissioner, like the provision applying to the Police Authority and, for that matter, the provision in the Bill applying to the district policing partnership board. As things stand, our plan is to table an amendment in another place. The amendments to new clause 4 and new schedule 1 would give the oversight commissioner responsibility for the process of police reform in Northern Ireland. They would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set terms of reference for the commissioner. Putting aside for a moment any objection in principle, I am bound to point out that the commissioner is in post, and is operating under terms of reference already set by the Secretary of State. It might therefore be difficult to change retrospectively the basis on which he was appointed and, indeed, to change the terms of reference that went alongside that.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I merely ask for information. The Minister said that the commissioner had been appointed according to a particular set of terms of reference. I hope that he will forgive me for asking whether those terms of reference are in the public domain. Do we know what they are?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Yes, they are in the public domain. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from them a few moments ago.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

My hon. Friend said that because the terms of reference had already been published, they were somehow set in stone. Can they not be altered?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Any terms of reference can be altered, but we are in a particular situation at this particular time. There is a potential for developments in the future; I shall say more about that shortly. As always, however, we do not wish to create too many blind alleys. Indeed, we are anxious to do the opposite. Let me now deal with the point of principle. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, which seems to constitute an attempt to get the commissioner to implement changes that the Government have not approved. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made clear in a brief speech, the Bill that emerges from the House of Commons will be the law. It will have been considered in another place and gone through a Committee. In that context, although we aim to stay as true to Patten as is practical and possible, it would be inappropriate to move away from the principle that what comes out of the House will be important in terms of what the oversight commissioner decides should be overseen in implementing the recommendations. 9.15 pm I make it absolutely clear that the commissioner's role is to oversee the implementation of changes in policing arrangements and the structures decided on by the House and by the Government in the context of the Patten report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is right to say that the Government's position is not to accept every detail of the 175 recommendations in Patten. Patten himself acknowledged that that was not necessary. He said that much work had to be done on detail. I think that, as a distinguished former Member of the House, he would be the first. to recognise that it would not be possible within terms of reference to produce a report that was a draft Bill, couched in the language and style of something that could be readily transformed into a Bill. To be fair, some sections of it were such that we could do that, but other sections were not so clearly translatable into legislation.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to come back to what is probably a technical point, for which there is a technical answer. The Minister refers to the oversight commissioner having been appointed, given terms of reference and all the rest of it. An appointment may have been made at a point when there was no legislative basis for doing so. We are now creating a legislative basis for the making of an appointment. I do not see in the new clauses or schedule any transitional provision to provide for the fact that the informal appointment that has already been made is to be the appointment for the purposes of the Act. Without such a transitional provision, there will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a formal appointment and to provide terms of reference in accordance with the Act.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Gentleman, eagle-eyed as ever, raises a useful point. I am sure that the answer that he gave to his own question is the answer that he is seeking. Therefore, I am happy to endorse what he said.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

In that case, there will be a fresh appointment and fresh terms of reference.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

"Fresh" implies a change of personnel and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not think that that is the intention. The other point that we have made—it is a serious answer to the right hon. Gentleman—is that the powers involved will now be put on a statutory footing. That makes a difference. It certainly adds to the standing of the commissioner because he will be carrying out functions that are statutory. The detail of the changes is contained in the Bill and in the comprehensive implementation plan, which will be updated once the Bill receives Royal Assent—so that which is overseen will be changed in accordance with the way in which the Bill finally emerges. What we are doing is entirely consistent with Patten. I hope—perhaps the phrase is more in hope than anticipation—that, on the basis of the assurances I have been able to give, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and his colleagues will not feel it necessary to push the amendments to a vote.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The purpose of our amendments is to clarify whether, if the Government do not materially implement a specific Patten recommendation, it would be within the oversight commissioner's power to say, "You have omitted to deal with this substantive matter and to make this substantive change." If the oversight commissioner will have that ability, either within or without his terms of reference, I would be quite happy, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, not to press the amendments.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will probably have to differ on this point. As we have already made clear, the commissioner is overseeing implementation of the changes arising from Patten and agreed by the Government and the House. The Government have included those changes in the Bill, and the House has approved the principle of the Bill's contents. I should like now to deal with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on plastic baton charges. I should say first that the working party which Patten recommended to examine the matter has met recently, and that the research that my hon. Friend mentioned and that Patten recommended is already under way. Although my hon. Friend used that matter as an example, we have taken on board the issue that he has raised. The issue is being addressed along the lines that Patten suggested. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will know that in chapter 9 of the report, in a box on page 52, Patten dealt with some of the weapons used against the police. He specifically mentioned the use—which, sadly, we have seen in the past few days—of stones, bricks…bottles…knives, spears and hatchets…firearms of all kinds, including automatic assault rifles and hand grenades. Patten went on to outline some of the most lethal weapons being used, including: Blast or pipe bombs…Coffee jar bombs…Petrol bombs…Chinese mortars…Explosive darts…Catapults used to fire steel ball bearings. Patten interviewed police personnel in the United States and in Holland—which is known for having one of the most liberal policing and criminal justice systems—and concluded that the police cannot be left improperly protected until the research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred has been concluded and a satisfactory alternative to plastic baton charges has been found. As I said a week or so ago in Committee, the implicit deal between society and the police is that the police act for us in many situations in which we are not capable or legally empowered to act for ourselves. Consequently—as we see far too often in Northern Ireland—the police are often placed in dangerous situations. I therefore think that Patten reached the right conclusion on the matter. Additionally, we should appreciate the fact that, in different parts of the world, in comparable public order situations, police use not plastic baton charges, but live ammunition. Therefore, in that sense, the restraint that has been shown by the RUC—and that, in the short term, until research provides a viable alternative we expect to continue to be shown by the new police service—is the best option available.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I do not find that recommendation in the summary. Recommendation 69 is that we should find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round (PBR). Patten is therefore saying that we have to find an effective alternative. The terms of reference start by asking whether there is an alternative. That distinction is important because it begins by begging the question that Patten has raised. Patten also stated, in recommendation 70, that The police should be equipped with a broader range of public order equipment. The report continues: The use of PBRs should be subject to the same procedures for deployment, use and reporting as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. It also recommends that their use should be treated in the same way as the use of firearms and that training should be confined to a small group. Have those recommendations been carried out?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

My hon. Friend quotes at length from Patten, but I can tell him that we are trying to move forward as quickly as possible on all those areas. I do not seek to have an argument with my hon. Friend—

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

No, I am seeking information.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am seeking to explain to my hon. Friend that, until such a time as a viable and effective alternative arises from research, that is what will happen. Of course, firearms training of any kind and training in all the equipment is a standard part of the way in which any police force, including the police force in Northern Ireland, operates. I know that the Chief Constable is mindful of those concerns and I also know that police officers in Northern Ireland have had much training in such areas in previous months.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My hon. Friend the Minister may recall that I was present in Committee when we had an almost identical debate, and I have much sympathy for what he says about baton rounds. Police officers must have comprehensive protection. On the issue of research, which institute is carrying it out? Given the comprehensive nature of the research, I presume that the programme of research is extensive.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Yes, it is extensive. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am anxious to make some progress—[Interruption.]

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

As for the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) seeks, I will get in touch with him on that point. Amendment No. 23 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Before addressing the amendment, and in response to arguments in Committee, I want to record that the Government have accepted that there will be a shift in emphasis in the best value area of the Bill. That will be addressed in the other place and will give the board the lead role in best value, with the Secretary of State simply having a default power. The provisions in clause 27 are about securing continuous improvement in the way in which the board exercises its functions. It is not Patten. It is an issue to be addressed by the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable. The commissioner's role is clear under his terms of reference and we do not believe it necessary or appropriate to include the functions provided for in that clause. I commend Government new clause 4 to the Committee.

REPORTS BY THE COMMISSIONER

TARGETS FOR RECRUITMENT

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to propose for the approval of the House amendments Nos. 323, 324 and 325, which, under the heading of recruitment to the police, deal with the support staff for the new police service. The present quota for civilian staff applies when 10 vacancies arise at roughly the same level at the same time. I am pleased to note that the Government, in Committee, reduced the number to 10. We believe that it should be two, and in that we are encouraged by the similar attitude of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The reason for amendment No. 323, as for many of our amendments, is simply to achieve a full and faithful implementation of the Patten report. Patten said in this respect that the quota system should apply both to officer and civilian recruitment. However, at the moment clause 43(5) imposes that artificial limit for the quota for police support staff. It applies only when there are 10 vacancies at any time at the same level. We believe that it is unlikely that 10 such vacancies will ever arise at the same time and at exactly the same level. The Government are proposing to reduce the number to six. We apply the same argument—that it is unlikely that six such vacancies will frequently arise in the same place, at the same time, at the same level. Amendment No. 323 provides instead that the quota shall apply where two similar vacancies arise at the same time—in line with the views of the Equality Commission. However, the Government have argued that such a provision would be too inflexible. We have tried to take that on board, and we believe that we have found a way forward that meets the Government's problem, our requirements and those of Patten and the Equality Commission. 9.45 pm We believe that the Chief Constable should be under a duty as far as practicable to recruit according to the 50:50 principle for between two and five appointments, but if that is not practical in the narrow sense, it should not apply, and the Chief Constable should have the discretion to balance the need to apply the quota against competing needs. However, he would have to account for that course of action, presumably in his annual report. We believe that that is a sensible and practical resolution of the difference between us and the Government, it is a better and fuller implementation of Patten, and it adheres to the views of the Equality Commission. I should like to think that the Government consider the amendment appropriate.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 301, 53 and 54. Taken together, the amendments would delete from the Bill subsections (3) to (6) of clause 43 and all of clauses 44 and 45. They would in effect remove the provisions to which objection has been taken by my party and by virtually all the parties in the House. The Government should realise that on this issue they stand alone. I am pleased to see that the Liberal Democrats have signed our amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I assume that they have not signed amendment No. 301 owing purely to an oversight.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We of course have been happy to support the Liberal Democrats' new clauses 1 and 2. We share with everyone in the House the objective of a police service that is broadly representative of the community. That should not be controversial. It was a stated objective when the RUC was created. About 900 officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary transferred to the RUC, my grandfather among them, and that group was representative of society in Northern Ireland. It was also the policy of the first Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland to achieve a police force that was representative. At one stage, they endeavoured to reserve one third of places for Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, recruitment never matched that target. We do not have the time this evening to go into the reasons why it did not, but the target was there. In that sense, we have no difficulty with the suggestion made by the Liberal Democrats of targets for recruitment and action to persuade people to come forward and join the police service. That is admirable, and I hope that, whatever arrangements are included in the legislation, they will be in those terms. The Government are however profoundly mistaken in deciding to discriminate in the legislation. Let us not have any nonsense about it. It is not affirmative action, and "positive discrimination" is a mealy-mouthed phrase meaning: "We are going to discriminate and treat one section of the community unfairly." That unfairness is demonstrated in the figures that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has mentioned. In the target age group—18 to 25—the numbers of Protestants and Catholics are roughly even. The figures that he gave were 44 and 45 per cent. However, 11 per cent. do not state their religion and the legislation will add that 11 per cent. to the Protestant side. So 50 per cent. of recruits will be taken from 45 per cent. of the population and the other 50 per cent. will be taken from 55 per cent. That is clearly discrimination.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important point. I have listened carefully to what he has said. He has admitted openly that objectives and targets in the past 80 years have not achieved parity within the RUC. Is there any reason to suppose that setting targets again without the force of law will achieve anything other than the continuation of the obvious imbalance in the RUC membership?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Gentleman wishes to take me down a road that we do not have time to travel. It is a question of exploring why this has not succeeded and whether there is now a new situation. I hope that there is, and in that new situation there is every reason to expect that there will be a different pattern of recruitment. That will probably happen irrespective of what is enacted here, but what is enacted here is in danger of doing a serious injustice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind. My view is that this arrangement will probably collapse, for a number of reasons, if the Government proceed in the way they propose. For example, in a situation in which the communities are roughly equally balanced, if there is an equal response from both communities of people wishing to join the police service, there will be roughly 50:50 recruitment. If there is not an even response, an unbalanced group of people will move into the pool, and then if we are drawing down on a 50:50 basis from a pool that is not 50:50, a significant number of people who will have been selected as suitable and qualified to join will go into the pool and remain there, month in, month out, for who knows how long. That will give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and injustice that no one will be able to defend. Any Administration with any element of conscience will have to address that situation. For that practical reason, I do not think the arrangement will survive. There is another reason. As the Government know, it involves the consideration of other provisions. The Patten report says that human rights are at the heart of its proposals. Here, they are not. This is a shameful aspect of the Patten report, of the Government's proposals and of the parties that are supporting them. Human rights are at the heart of the proposals? On the one concrete issue where it counts, is anybody paying any attention to human rights? No. The position of hon. Members opposite who are lending the proposal their support is utterly shameful. They should address the matter. Furthermore, European law will compel a new approach. Article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty, signed in 1997, provides for the introduction of provisions to combat discrimination. The equal treatment directive, coming into operation in December 2002, will have an impact. In 1998 the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) proposed amendments to legislation going through the House that would have tried to provide a degree of what she might have called positive discrimination for women. From a report by the constitution unit of University College London, entitled "Women's representation in UK Politics: what can be done within the Law?", I wish to quote two paragraphs, because they are quite important. They show why the provisions proposed by other parties are wrong; and they know they are wrong, because they rejected these proposals in 1998. The report says: On 3 March 1998…a memo was leaked to The Guardian newspaper of a high-level Government meeting where this was discussed. That is a reference to the hon. Lady's proposals for positive discrimination and other similar proposals. Allegedly the Secretary of State for Scotland favoured using the Scotland Bill to introduce an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act. However, at this meeting the Lord Chancellor…advised other Cabinet colleagues that it would be unwise to accept such amendments. This was based on advice given to Government law officers by Patrick Elias QC. According to the leak, Lord Irvine reported that if the Sex Discrimination Act were amended, "the probability was that a legal challenge under the European Equal Treatment Directive would succeed…the law officers said that at each stage in the process—adoption of legislation, selection of candidates, and the election itself—the Government could and probably would be a respondent. Any Minister bringing forward or accepting an amendment would not be able to assure the House that it was ECJ-proof— that is, European Court of Justice-proof. This would put him in an impossible position and create handling difficulties." Lord Irvine concluded that the Government line should be that "amendment of the SDA would be pointless because of the substantial risk of successful challenge under the ETD.

Maria Fyfe (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am surprised that that particular event in 1998 should be remembered tonight. At that time, I was talking about having equal numbers of men and women elected to the Scottish Parliament. We received strong advice that the equal treatment directive had nothing to do with elected Members of Parliament, but that it had everything to do with people being appointed to jobs, which is what we are debating tonight. Since that time, however, a few studies have been carried out that show that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was wrong and that we would have been within our rights to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I certainly agree with one point that the right hon. Gentleman has made—

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I pretty well invited by referring to her. Her proposal was about equal numbers of men and women and we are debating an analogous proposal relating to an equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics. She conceded that this issue deals with employment and that the provisions for elected Members do not apply in this case. I would be interested to see the other reports that suggest that the Lord Chancellor got it wrong. The report that I quoted is dated June 2000, so it has been published within the last month. I am entitled to regard it as up to date and it does not refer to the other reports. The quotes from the Lord Chancellor are clear and authoritative and comply with the independent advice that we have received about the European directive. The likelihood is that, within a short time, the Government will find that their proposal is struck down by the European courts. The question we must ask the Government is why they are proceeding with a proposal that they know will probably be struck down. They cannot assure the House that it is, in the words of Lord Irvine, "ECJ proof". In any event, the Government must know, without reference to the equal treatment directive, that it is wrong to discriminate in the way that they propose. By all means, let us do what we can to encourage people to come forward and to ensure that we have a balanced and representative police force. The most significant action that can be taken to achieve that aim requires not legislation, but positive action by some hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. I am thinking of those Members who represent the Social Democratic and Labour party who by their actions—what they say and what they do—in the days and weeks to come can do more to encourage and produce a representative police service than all the legislation put together. Rather than pursue something that is morally wrong and illegal under European law, let them use their voices and get out into the community to persuade people to come forward and join the police service as provided for by this Bill.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When the Democratic Unionist party had a meeting with the Minister of State the legality of the provision for having a police force made up of 50 per cent. Protestants or non-Catholics and 50 per cent. Roman Catholics was one of the issues that we raised. I pointed out, from some little knowledge of Europe, that there was a problem with that provision. Will the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House that the provision is legal under European law? Can he say unequivocally that what he is asking for is in complete agreement with European law—or is it not? If he were to refer to a derogation, that would be a different matter. That would mean that he accepted that the provision is not legal under European law and that he must go for a derogation. 10 pm The debate on this issue cannot proceed until the Secretary of State tells the House exactly what the position in European law is, and it is incumbent on him to know what that legal standing is. I hope that when he, or another Minister, responds to the debate, he will be able to state that clearly. He should not put us off by saying that the Government are looking into it or negotiating it. I will be interested to hear that reply because as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, this is an important matter, and the House needs to know how European law affects what it is deciding tonight. Under the terms of the legislation that we are being asked to support, it will be difficult to achieve the target of 50 per cent. of recruits being Roman Catholics and to ensure that the section of the community that is bracketed as non-Catholic gets the justice that it, too, deserves. How are we to do that? The Government must not duck these issues; they must tell us exactly what they intend to do. Who will tell the House authoritatively that non-Catholics will join the police force envisaged in the Bill? I have not heard from SDLP Members that they will call on the people who support them to join as the Bill becomes law. Will it reach the standards that they have set? If the Bill is passed tonight, will they tell us that they will be able to stand up to their constituency and say, "Yes, you should join this police force"? We know exactly where Sinn Fein-IRA stands: it says that it will not make any call to its constituency until everything else is completed. When will the process be completed? How far away is that date? It seems a very long way away, because when something is done, something else is asked for, and when that is done, something else is asked for. When will we have recruitment to the new force? If the Roman Catholic people are not urged by their leaders to join, they will not do so. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that there must be a call from the leaders of that community, because people will decide to join the police not after reading the Bill, but when their leadership says that they may join. The House could have a long debate about why Roman Catholic people have not joined the police force. I have constituents who are members of the RUC; they cannot go to their own homes, and their parents have to visit them in England. People who face such intimidation will not join the police force, no matter what it is called. The House needs to address those issues.

Maria Fyfe (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

When I said that the Lord Chancellor was wrong, I was referring to the question of selecting and electing Members of Parliament, not to taking on employees. The equal treatment directive is pretty straightforward and simply says that an employer is entitled to take positive action to bring into employment people who have been under-represented. I would be surprised if my colleagues on the Front Bench had not checked that out before presenting their Bill.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The official Opposition share all the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the way the Bill stands. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) add to the categories that we believe fall foul of European law and of the European convention on human rights as incorporated into our law. We considered this issue in great detail in Committee. When we considered whether these measures were compliant, it was noteworthy that the Minister was remarkably opaque on the subject. He said: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to previous explanations.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 June 2000; c. 307.] On checking the entirety of Hansard for that occasion, I found no explanations as to how this part of the Bill satisfies the Amsterdam treaty and the directives that are likely to arise. There is no evidence that it does. The maximum that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say was that "our European partners"—I think that that was the expression—would be sympathetic and would therefore find a way out for the Government from their dilemma. It was odd that the European Court of Human Rights and how it might interpret such a flagrant breach of directives, and the Amsterdam treaty, were never really mentioned. My anxiety has always centred on the European convention on human rights. Article 9 is clear. It states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. How do the Government's current proposals match up to that? The Government are proposing to create a pool. Into it will go those who are qualified to join the police service. However, they will not be allowed to join having passed on qualification. They will be obliged to wait until the Government consider that they are in the right place on the religious quota to be admitted. In this world there is discrimination both direct and indirect. There is no point in saying, "We are not interfering with the way that you exercise your religious belief", if by virtue of the way in which people exercise their beliefs they will be discriminated against in the workplace when applying to join the police service. All the entrants who come forward to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary—or the police service, or whatever it may be called—will each receive an assessment. It beggars belief that a lawyer will not trawl through the assessments to point out the inconsistencies of one person being favoured as against another on the ground of his religion. As I said to the Minister in Committee, I hope not entirely flippantly, what happens if somebody having been admitted to the pool decides to change his religious faith? The Minister suggested that he thought the person might drown, out of uncertainty. However, that is a question that he will have to answer, because at some stage precisely that problem is likely to arise. When it does, how will that person be treated thereafter? There are many other inconsistencies in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The most obvious and notable is that it divides the community into two equal camps of 50 per cent., which neither reflects society at large nor makes any allowance for any other minority group, or anyone not defined as Protestant or Catholic. It is difficult to imagine a criterion which would act as more of a red rag to a bull in a polarised community. It takes no account of other religious or ethnic minorities. The Minister has the Opposition's support in the desire to see the number of Catholics in the RUC greatly increased. He knows that if there were to come a day when Catholics accounted for more than 50 per cent. of its numbers, that would not bother us one iota. We would not be concerned if they took advantage of the job opportunities and performed the service to the community that those allowed. However, the Government have chosen to introduce a measure that is discriminatory. The Minister admitted in Committee that it means positive discrimination, and rather gloried in it. As a principle on which this House should conduct its business and pass legislation, I find that extraordinary.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the Fair Employment Act, it was his Government who introduced the concepts of perceived Protestant and perceived Roman Catholic?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Neither this Government, the previous Government nor—I believe—any Government have passed a measure involving positive discrimination. The measures proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, which are certainly affirmative in their help to the Catholic community, command support and are a tried and tested method that goes to the very limit of what in our view is possible and allowable under both international law and our European convention obligations. No previous Government have departed from that; I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he thinks that some previous Government have done so. I do not believe that to be so.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Did not his Government, under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, introduce the concept of individuals as perceived Protestants and perceived Roman Catholics?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

That was in 1976.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I do not know who introduced that legislation; the right hon. Gentleman says that it was in 1976. None the less, no measure involving positive discrimination has been passed by the House. In the light of the Patten report, it is a little surprising that the Government should have so glibly passed over the seriousness of the issue, simply saying, "Oh, we think that it's perfectly all right." We do not believe that it is. The Minister wants to provide great reassurance and would like to give chapter and verse on the matter, which I must say he did not in Committee. I will listen with interest, but in our view, the principle is completely flawed and wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Given that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a huge imbalance between Protestants and Roman Catholics in the current police service of Northern Ireland, will he please explain what he would do to ensure some fairness in future? There has been systematic discrimination throughout many decades against Roman Catholic recruits. This legislation is designed to try to correct that imbalance. Does he have any solution to the problem?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I do indeed. To begin with, I recollect that on Second Reading, as has been pointed out, hon. Members representing the SDLP stood up one by one to say that if the Bill were passed and acceptable to them, they would go to the marketplace, even in west Belfast, and encourage—and succeed in encouraging—Catholics to join the police service. That is very close to the words of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); I remember them well because they were eloquent. Such action in itself would make a major contribution to breaking the ice, and the logjam. There is also affirmative action that could be carried out that would be proper, and would not offend against human rights legislation.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman inform us who he thinks might speak best and most accurately for Catholics—a political party known as the SDLP or the Catholic Church?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That is a question that I do not propose to answer. I raised the hon. Gentleman's position because I regard him as a man of complete integrity, and I listened very carefully to what he said on Second Reading. I took it that if he was satisfied with the Bill and said on behalf of the Catholic community that Catholics should join the police service, many who had previously been deterred would do so. Whether it is he who takes such action, or whether it is priests of the Roman Catholic Church or other members of the community at large, seems to matter very little.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for giving way. I note the points that he has made, and if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will deal with that matter. In the interests of whatever harmony is left, may I refer the hon. Gentleman, without being specific, to an article written on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy some weeks ago in the name of Father Tim Bartlett? I ask him to study it carefully. I will answer, as will my colleagues, for our political party and our political stance. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article before he goes much further.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I will read the article. If it suggests that positive discrimination is the solution, I do not mind who it comes from—I will reject it. We can leave aside the European Court of Justice and the European convention on human rights. It has not been a principle or practice in this country to engage in positive discrimination. That will bring in its wake every kind of resentment, which is the very thing that we want to break down. I cannot think of a worse way of starting a new police service on its course with the good wishes of the House, than to saddle it with such an incubus at the outset.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

In Committee, I paid many tributes to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Not tonight. Many assertions have been made and points of view strongly expressed by the hon. Gentleman which seem to ignore the fact that, through the Bill, we seek to establish the principles that Patten identified and which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tried to make the hon. Gentleman understand. I could ask a simple question of those who oppose what we seek to do. Which EU directive do they have in mind? None. There is no EU directive that prohibits what we seek to do through the Bill—not one.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Minister is correct that, as matters stand at present, there is no EU directive, and I did not suggest that there was. The Amsterdam treaty sets the framework, and there is a directive in contemplation from which the Government will have to seek a derogation or some form of accommodation, as I understand it, in order to allow the matter to proceed. As I pointed out to the Minister, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is used to being paid by the minute, but he answered the question in the first few words of his response. There is no EU directive that the Bill contravenes. He is right to say that the matter is being examined. We said in Committee, and I repeat, that with our European partners, we will look at the ways in which we can deal with the issue. That seems to be a sensible way forward. The EU has been a tremendous supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland. In our dealings with our European partners, we have found time and again that they are prepared to accept the ways in which the issue must be addressed to move the peace process forward. They live in world of reality, not bombast and rhetoric such as we have heard in the debate. Let us deal with reality. I have heard it said that the Bill is not ECHR-compliant. It is ECHR-compliant, otherwise that statement would not appear in the Bill. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that no Minister can knowingly act illegally. That is the case. If there were any doubt, we would not make that attestation, nor would we stand here and defend that position. In dealing with the subject of our discussion, we have heard much rhetoric and many strong views, but let us tackle reality. The purpose of amendments Nos. 301, 52, 53 and 54 is to remove from the Bill the provisions that allow for the so-called 50:50 recruitment arrangements. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has tabled alternative new clauses 1 and 2, which would provide for a programme of affirmative action to encourage a higher rate of Catholic application. We debated the issue at considerable length in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was not happy with the result, but he cannot deny that we had a heavyweight debate in Committee. We trawled over the same ground that we are now discussing. Let me reiterate the Government's position. The parties to the Belfast agreement considered it imperative that the police service, if it is to be fully effective, should be representative of the community it polices. As matters stand, only 8 per cent. of the RUC is from the Catholic community. The Government recognise that victimisation and intimidation have unquestionably played a significant role in depressing the rate of Catholic application to the RUC. As Patten said, we must address that. In paragraph 15.2, the Patten report stated: The key to making that police service representative of those communities—indeed the key to the successful implementation of nearly everything in this report—is that the leaders of those communities now actively encourage their young people to join the police service. That acknowledges that not only the Governments, but all parties and all parts of the community in Northern Ireland must address the problem. Neither Patten nor the Government intend 50:50 recruitment to represent an alternative to affirmative action. Paragraph 15.8 states clearly that the recruitment agency, for which clause 42 provides, should advertise imaginatively and persistently, particularly in places likely to reach groups who are under-represented in the police. As at present the advertisements should make it clear that the police Service wants to attract more Catholics and women. But every effort should be made to get this message across, through local newspapers, magazines, club and community centre notice boards and any other way that can be found to reach the target groups directly. Paragraph 15.6 of the report recommends cadet schemes; paragraph 15.11 recommends flexible working and child care schemes. The Police Federation, in its response to the Patten report, said that it would take 30 years to achieve a balance through affirmative action alone. I am therefore surprised, especially as the matter was debated in Committee, that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has tabled the amendment. I recounted the Government's firm determination to take forward affirmative action programmes. We also needed to move the whole process forward and introduce the 50:50 recruitment policy. The policy is exceptional and deals with an unusual set of circumstances. We are not discussing Dudley, Bracknell or Montgomeryshire, but Northern Ireland, where there are tremendously deep divisions. Patten realised that that needed to be addressed. The signatories to the Belfast agreement gave that an impetus. The Government are delivering the policy. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not press their amendments.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Is not it hypocritical for the Government to speak in those terms when on 23 and 24 March, in a joint statement at the Lisbon European Council meeting, the United Kingdom and Irish Governments urged member states to make early progress on the Commission's Article 13 anti-discrimination proposals? Is not it hypocritical to say that a change must be made?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Thank you very much for that defence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to respond robustly, but I simply say that of course the party that I represent has a proud tradition of fighting discrimination, in and out of government. I am not so sure that many of those who have raised these issues tonight would have stood in line against many of the types of discrimination that we have had to fight against. As we are dealing with exceptional circumstances, we will deal with friendly partners who understand the exceptional need. We cannot predict the outcome, but we will be progressive and constructive—not to undermine the principles of any future directive, but to place what we seek to do in Northern Ireland in context. Government amendments Nos. 133 and 135 would require 50:50 recruitment to be applied in the recruitment of police support staff when six or more vacancies at a similar level had to be filled. The threshold figure was previously stipulated as 10. As the figure is to be reduced, it is reasonable to enable the Secretary of State to set aside 50:50 recruitment—after consulting the board and the Chief Constable—when it simply is not possible. We believe that to be a sensible precaution. The hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh tabled amendments Nos. 323 to 325, which would reduce the threshold to two with a proviso that the quota mechanism be applied where it is practicable to do so when the number of vacancies is five or fewer. The Chief Constable would also be required to publish information on such appointments annually. The issue was debated in Committee when I said that the Government were prepared to be flexible. We have looked at it again and I am persuaded that the figure can reasonably be reduced to six. However, although we have moved from a threshold of 10, I am not persuaded to reduce the figure to two. To reduce it further would virtually set aside the merit principle. Furthermore, at such a low level, the quota mechanism would produce a minimal impact on overall composition and in practical terms could prove impossible to apply when such small numbers are involved, particularly if an odd number of posts—three, for example—had to be filled. I hope that the amended threshold figure of six will be seen as a workable solution and I ask the House to accept our amendment on that basis. As to the publication of religious monitoring and composition information, the police service will continue to adhere to the terms of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and guidance, as appropriate, from the Equality Commission. I do not believe that there is any need to put any of those issues into the legislation. Government amendments Nos. 130 and 127 rectify technical defects. Amendment No. 130 would require the Secretary of State to consult the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, the Equality Commission and the police associations in making regulations for the recruitment function. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult those bodies when making regulations in respect of the recruitment agent. It appears entirely sensible that they should also have the opportunity to comment on the detail of the recruitment function itself—for example, advertising of vacancies, testing of applicants and so on. Amendment No. 127 would enable the recruitment agency, under clause 42, to recruit all officers and support staff appointed by the Chief Constable rather than only trainee officers at constable level. Senior officers and civilians are not covered because, of course, they are appointed by the board. I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 127, 130, 133 and 135 and to reject all other amendments. Given the time scale, we probably will not debate new clause 6 and I give the House notice that the Government do not intend to move amendment No. 197.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I asked hon. Members in presenting their amendments and justifying their arguments to tell me on which EU directive they based their case, and the hon. Gentleman has not done so.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With the leave of the House, I will put together amendment No. 44, the remaining Government amendments with the exception of Nos. 197, 212 and 299, and Government new schedule 1.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Patten report speaks to a very different Northern Ireland from that which we have known in the past. The Good Friday agreement provided the basis for ending 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland and the days when the pillars of the state in Northern Ireland failed to represent the society that those pillars served. Chief among them, in nationalist eyes, was the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the police service in Northern Ireland. Like the Good Friday agreement that spawned it, the report of the Patten commission promised nothing less than a new beginning. It promised a modern, civic police service rooted in all parts of the community, drawing strength and legitimacy from all parts of the community. With this Bill, our task is to bring the vision of the Patten report to life—to reality—and to draw a line under recent history, but not to forget, and certainly not to disown, that history. Three hundred and two officers of the RUC have lost their lives. Thousands more have been injured. Families and friends suffered bereavement. I know from my meetings, contacts and encounters with those friends and families how the terrible pain of that bereavement continues in the lives of those people—mothers, wives, offspring. The courage of the RUC in the face of such sacrifice was immense; I think that the whole House will want to salute it. The professionalism of RUC officers was extraordinary, and we respect it. It is for that reason that, in the Bill, we will create the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. That will mean that the name of the RUC, its proud history and record will live on in perpetuity and will be for ever honoured. Over the last few weeks, and particularly over the last five days or so, in Drumcree and across Northern Ireland, in the face of bottles, bomb blasts, blast bombs, and acid squirted in the faces of RUC officers, we have seen that professionalism again and again and again, night in and night out, as hoodlums—thugs—have hijacked what I regard as legitimate protest. I believe that we will all want to pay tribute to the RUC for bearing the enormous brunt of that violence over the last week. The RUC has paid a price in more than one way. Its members have certainly paid a price with their lives but, over the past 30 years, the fact that the RUC has been the bulwark against a brutal terrorist campaign has led to its being identified more with one side of the community than with the other. That identification may not be deserved—it has certainly not been sought—but that is the perception of a substantial section of the community, and it is a perception that, in the Bill, we are addressing and seeking to correct. The Patten commission's starting point was that the police service must respect the values and reflect the pluralism of Northern Ireland's society as a whole, not just a majority of that society but the whole of it. The police service must enjoy widespread support from, and must be seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole. It must do that if it is to be an effective police service. That is very hard when there is a 9:1 religious imbalance in the composition of the police. The hard reality of policing in Northern Ireland, and the reason why policing was remitted to the Patten commission in the first place, is that, while 80 per cent. of Protestants are content with policing, less than 50 per cent. of Catholics are satisfied. That is shown in a number of opinion surveys. Eighty-eight per cent. of the police are from one section of the community, in spite of the efforts of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to achieve a more balanced service. Those efforts have been great and they have been sustained, but they have not been successful. Of course, intimidation by the IRA has been a factor in preventing Catholics, and discouraging nationalists, from joining the RUC; but it is only one factor. Lack of community support and of identity with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, fear that they would lose contact with family and with friends, fear that they would have to submerge their Catholic identity or nationalist politics if they were to join the RUC, and fear of harassment in their community or within the RUC—all these have played a part. I did not simply take the Patten report at face value. I looked behind it. I looked into it. I talked to people right across the community, and made my own judgments about what was right and what needed to be done. I was persuaded that radical changes were needed to redress that extreme religious imbalance that has resulted in the RUC's being unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and therefore all the less effective as a police service as a consequence. The radical changes that needed to be made included changing the name. That is a difficult decision, and it is a painful decision for people right across the RUC family. Indeed, it was a painful decision for me, and one that I would not have taken if I did not believe that it was essential to the new beginning that Patten envisages. If I had felt that we could have gone ahead and created a new start, and created a new beginning for policing without changing the name, I most certainly would have done that. I am also persuaded that widespread support means not alienating the Protestant and Unionist traditions in the community. Yes, they must accept change and, in this case, radical change, but we must be sensitive to the fears and concerns of all in the community of both traditions. Change must be built on consensus wherever we can achieve it. That is an important principle to apply to the implementation of Patten. Wherever it is possible to secure agreement and consensus, draw the traditions together and put them behind the changes that we want to see, we should strenuously seek to do so and we should not give up easily when at first we do not succeed. Patten was clear that the RUC was not being disbanded. That argument was made strenuously by some in Northern Ireland, and it was rejected. Patten was also clear that the link between the RUC and the new police service must be recognised. It is in his report. For that reason, because I want to ease the transition in the best way that I can, because I want to build as wide a consensus for change as possible and because I want to address the fears and concerns of both traditions and people across the community, we have accepted a description moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect, in the title deeds of the new service. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, as Patten himself recommended—he wanted that link established between the RUC and the new police service—is being carried forward. The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time, we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We did that, having accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The name "Police Service of Northern Ireland" will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public. It is critical that we strike the right balance throughout in the way in which we carry forward the changes. People across the community must know and respect the officers in the new service. Both sides must feel that the service genuinely reflects their values, needs and traditions. They must emphatically not feel that, by joining the service, let alone supporting it, they are in some way betraying members of their tradition and their side of the community in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, what the police do—how representative they are; how they are trained and equipped—matters more than what they are called. The Government are determined to ensure that the police have the necessary resources and capabilities to protect the community and uphold law and order. Hon. Members have referred to what they sometimes call the mafia society in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a society that carries the legacy of 30 years of conflict and the operation, persistence, and contamination of paramilitary organisations. Under the new political dispensation, we have the opportunity for society as a whole and its policing service to unite in standing up to, and facing down, each and every one of those paramilitary organisations. If we do not, we will never succeed in creating the decent, civic society in Northern Ireland to which we all aspire. The Government are determined, therefore, that the policing service that is being created is not simply rebadged or renamed, but is a truly effective, capable policing service. It is true that, in a sense, the Patten report was an important part of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland—quite rightly. That is why it was spawned by the Good Friday agreement. Equally, what the Patten report and its implementation must be about is, above all, efficient and effective policing, to cope with the threat and the dangers that persist in Northern Ireland. In some cases, some interpretation of the Patten report has been needed. Patten did not give a detailed blueprint for everything. In some cases, also, we have been able to move forward and implement Patten without legislation; not every change, alteration, modification, needs to be provided for in law. Indeed, Patten himself did not contend that his report spelled out every particular, and in parts he deliberately avoided being too prescriptive on the detail, so as to allow other voices to be heard. Those other voices have been heard since the report was published, and they will continue to be heard as we proceed along the path of its implementation. So when we introduced the Bill on 16 May, we acknowledged that it would need some changes and adjustments. I never said at the time that the Bill was the last word. It was the first stab—I happen to think that it was a good, honourable and faithful stab—at implementing the Patten report. It does not deserve some of the descriptions made of it, in many cases—not all—for straightforward ulterior political purposes by some individuals in Northern Ireland who never had, and never will have, any intention of supporting the police, reformed, renamed, rebadged or otherwise. I have listened to constructive comments on the Bill and have made, and shall continue to make, where the argument is persuasive, necessary changes to meet legitimate concerns. Indeed, on a number of points, as will be known to hon. Members who followed the Bill's progress through its Committee stage, we have acted: in relation to the Policing Board, its objectives, its planning, the code of ethics and other codes of behaviour and operation, and on reports and inquiries by the board. I have shifted the balance since the Bill was published to reflect concerns that there were too many safeguards. I think that I struck the balance in the wrong place. There were too many limitations. I have listened and I have moved. The wording of the oath is now more in line with Patten, and all serving officers are required to understand the new oath and the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it. Those who made that case were right, and we have moved to accommodate their view. We have also removed the 10-year cut-off for 50:50 recruitment. I, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been, and remain, open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place as the Bill leaves this House and moves on to the other place. That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation that we have been considering in Committee and again today. This is perhaps the best chance that we shall have to create an outstanding modern police service, one that will be a model of its kind for the rest of the world to emulate, and to allow the police to change and develop in a way that they have wanted for years. The RUC did not want to be trapped in the identity, the character, of a security force. The RUC members and officers themselves, led by an able and outstanding Chief Constable, wanted to evolve into a community-based partnership policing service as circumstances and conditions allowed, to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force to a community-focused and community-based police service; in other words, a new police service for a new political dispensation, a new society, that is emerging, with difficulty, in Northern Ireland. That is Patten's vision and I believe that the Bill is entirely faithful to it. It is a full, honourable and faithful implementation of every part of Patten's recommendations. That is why I commend it to the House.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

When I opposed the guillotine motion a few hours ago, I described this as a sad day for Parliament and a sad day for Northern Ireland. I deeply regret that everything that I said has been borne out in the course of the debate. We have managed to debate only three groups of amendments, and seven groups were not debated at all. On the first significant group of amendments that was debated—it was on the Policing Board and district policing partnerships—no votes were taken on important amendments moved by myself, my colleagues and the Ulster Unionists because we did not reach them on the amendment paper. That is not a proper way to scrutinise a Bill. The guillotine motion was debated briskly by everyone who took part in the debate on it.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

It took two hours.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The hon. Lady, who was not present for one moment of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] She was not present, and I have no intention of apologising. She says that the debate on the guillotine motion took two hours. It took marginally less than that, but the truth is that many Members wished legitimately to express their concern that a Bill that had moved briskly through Committee in 11 sittings was being guillotined. They legitimately said that there was not sufficient opportunity in the guillotine motion to debate the legitimate amendments that were on the amendment paper in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from a variety of parties on both sides of the House. We have been proved right, because only three of the seven groups of amendments were discussed.

Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West)

I wonder why.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The Northern Ireland Whip says that he wonders why. I shall do my best to answer him by returning to the point that I was making when I was interrupted by a sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). Debate on the guillotine motion proceeded briskly with each Member speaking briefly. We then moved on to the first group of the amendments on what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the rest of the House will agree are serious issues, such as who should sit on the Policing Board and on the partnerships. Rightly, the Minister of State nods his agreement. In that debate, everyone spoke briefly with one exception—the Minister took 51 minutes to reply. [Interruption.] I do not object to the fact that he took 51 minutes to reply, but there were relatively few interventions. The Minister took 51 minutes to respond—I respect him for doing so—because many amendments had been debated. He had to respond to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), had tabled a significant number of amendments about which they feel strongly. The Minister had to respond to the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the official Opposition and to those that were spoken to by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Minister also responded to significant interventions from other Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland.—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Secretary of State tapping his watch: this is not our timetable, it is his. The Minister of State took 51 minutes to respond because significant issues had been raised and he was doing his best to reply properly. That illustrates why more time was necessary for debate on Report.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

The right hon. Gentleman has missed the historic moment of today's events in that this is the first time that I have moved an amendment that has been accepted by the Government.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that because I know that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not often accept his amendments. Indeed, I suspect that this might be a unique occasion. We had a response to only three groups of amendments, and the deeply significant amendments in the fourth group concerned the name of the RUC. I noted that the Secretary of State, in what were, by and large, sensitive and thoughtful remarks on Third Reading, spent most of his time discussing the name, and I suspect that that was the speech that he would have liked to have made in speaking to his amendments, which he was not able to do because of the guillotine motion moved by his Minister of State. The trouble is that the Secretary of State said many things about the name—many of which I agree with and some of which he knows, from the amendments in my name, I do not agree with—but no Member is now able to discuss the name or the amendments relating to it. The guillotine chopped off all the remaining amendments, and there has been no discussion of them whatsoever. When the other place receives the Bill, it will wish to scrutinise it in great detail, not least because this House has been unable to do so. That is a great pity, because if we had been given two days for Report and Third Reading, which legislation of this significance deserves, the Bill would have gone to the other place having been fully debated. I do not particularly blame the Secretary of State because he is not one of the business managers. I blame the business managers because they have completely lost control of Parliament. They are trying to thrust far too many Bills through the House in this Session and there cannot, therefore, be proper consideration of serious Bills such as this. This has been a very sad day for Parliament and a very sad day for Northern Ireland. I hope that the other place will be able properly to debate amendments that we were unable to debate. [Interruption.] I think that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), is saying that I do not mean that.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

indicated dissent.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I could not quite hear what the hon. Lady said, relatively loudly, from a sedentary position, but I will be happy to let her intervene. She does not want to intervene. Clearly the remark was not worth your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a sad day and it is important that the other place properly debates the Bill and votes on it. Many Labour Members, particularly from the new intake, have not been present during most of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who takes an interest in Northern Ireland matters from time to time, did not turn up once during the earlier debates, but has been chattering away from a sedentary position. She seems to think that debate is wrong and rubber-stamping is right. One day she might learn otherwise, although I suspect that she will not because I doubt that she will be a Member of the next Parliament. It is important that the other place takes careful note of what has happened tonight and of the lack of debate and votes. I look forward to returning to these deliberations when we eventually consider Lords amendments well into the autumn.

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

I have sat in this House for about 16 years—right through Thatcherism, Majorism and the type of approach that ignored the political position of a very substantial section of the community in the north of Ireland. Tonight, I have heard that approach repeated. Tonight, I have heard the type of Majorism, Thatcherism and the ignoring of a position of people in the north of Ireland in a way that I never believed I would hear from these Benches. So be it. Hearing such a speech is a matter of regret to me and to my party, because I and my colleagues know what its effect will be. I do not have to tell the House what the effect will be—the House knows—but it will come about because the Secretary of State will not persuade people to join the police service. He is not able to. I can tell him that, after tonight, he stands very little chance. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will not be able to persuade people to join the new police service—not through any defect in himself, but because of the points that were made previously this evening. Let us put the issue into context, in the sense that the Secretary of State focused on the change of name. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members are not aware that the clause before us on the name of the new police service is draft No. 3. Draft No. 1 was ditched after Hillsborough. The Government's first draft was in accord absolutely and totally with the new clause that I and my colleagues tabled in Committee. The Government voted against a new clause on the new name that they had themselves written. That is on record for anyone to read. Draft No. 2 represented the Government's adoption of a Unionist motion, which I gravely suspect the Government also wrote a considerable time ago when the Hillsborough virus first set in. At least they tried to amend it with amendment No. 197, which they withdrew with inordinate haste tonight. The clause before us is mark 3 of the Government's statement on the name of the new police service. That would be a serious business in any piece of legislation, but it is much more serious in this one. I shall briefly—I know that I have to be brief—refer to some of the allegations and accusations that have been made across the Floor tonight. I simply remind the House who Chris Patten was. He was not a Catholic nationalist from Northern Ireland; he was chairman of the Conservative party, a Cabinet Minister, a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, a European Union Commissioner and the Governor of Hong Kong. What did he say about the very essence of the matter—the joining of the police service? He said: if you are going to get a police service which young Catholics as well as young Protestants…are going to join, then it can't be identified with the central political argument in Northern Ireland and it is as simple as that. Those are not my words, but Chris Patten's. Yet the very basis upon which the Government propose to implement the Bill is a Unionist amendment. I have my own views about the use of the terms "Catholics" and "Protestants" in relation to the Bill and the issue. I happen to believe that people are people, not religious tags. I referred to Chris Patten and who he is because I want to avoid that. I believe that what has happened in the House tonight has done irreparable damage to the prospect of a new policing dispensation.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

I do not have time to give way. In fairness, I have been sitting in the Chamber since 4.30 pm, waiting to make a contribution. In an earlier intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who he would regard as the primary authority on what Catholics might do—a small political party such as the SDLP or the Catholic Church, through a spokesman and its hierarchy. I admire the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. At least sometimes, most times, almost always, he is honest, if honestly wrong on many issues. I believe that with regard to the terms in which Patten's comments are couched and also the objective of the Bill, we should consider what the Catholic Church has said through a spokesman, Father Tim Bartlett. It is on record, and I know that it represents the view of the Catholic hierarchy—[Interruption.] I will face any challenge on that. I will amend the quote slightly, because I do not like being hurtful. Father Tim Bartlett stated: The failure— I put in the words "of this Government"— to remain faithful to key elements of the Patten Report in the current Policing Bill and the willingness to subject a fundamental issue of civic justice—the right to representative policing—to the "spin and win" of politics, has provided one of the greatest obstacles to encouragement for young Catholics to have emerged in recent years. Not my words, not a politically biased position, but the words of those who, with the SDLP, will have to try and ensure the involvement and the inclusion of the community that we represent in a new policing dispensation. Why ignore those words? Why treat them as though they were never said? Why treat the issue as something that is clever in Westminster terms, but irrelevant in terms of persuading a divided community to be part of a policing dispensation? I referred to the Hillsborough virus. It is a matter of record that the first clause of the Bill was exactly what we presented as a new clause in Committee. All of a sudden, when it looked as though decommissioning had at least begun to be resolved, what appeared on the table? Patten. No sooner was it on the table—within 10 minutes of acquiescence in the position on decommissioning—there was an immediate movement by the Government. What they had written was no longer relevant. What they had written was torn up. The Secretary of State shakes his head.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am sad.

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

So am I. As I said at the beginning, I have seen much political chicanery on the issue. This is the third time that the Secretary of State has made deals, and on the name of the new police service—

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Is the right hon. Gentleman's point of order to do with the Division?

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Yes. Three hon. Members spoke on Third Reading on a hugely sensitive and important issue. The Secretary of State is in his place. He acknowledged in his speech the sensitivity of the issue. He also recognised, as did other hon. Members, that it has been impossible to comment on several important issues. We are currently holding a vote, but something will have to be done, or the people of Northern Ireland will not feel that the serious subject of our discussion has received the attention from this Parliament that it deserves.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I hear that point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that our arrangements this evening were made under an Order that was agreed by the whole House.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)

EDUCATION

DATA PROTECTION

United Christian Broadcasters

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am delighted to be able to present a petition on behalf of 1,167 residents of the Lagan valley and surrounding areas. The collection of signatures has been co-ordinated by Ruby Hutchinson on behalf of United Christian Broadcasters. The petition states: The Humble Petition of the Residents of Lagan Valley and surrounding areas sheweth That United Christian Broadcasters and groups like it are banned by law from applying for many types of broadcasting licence. This applies to both television and radio, and relegates religious broadcasting to the very limited opportunities provided by local radio, satellite and cable broadcasting. The legislation entrenches a suspicion of religious groups that is unjustified and unfair, and it impugns the religious basis on which they are founded. The Petition also addresses the broadcasting codes for television and radio, which again single out religious groups for special restrictions. It is not right that secular groups should have freedom of expression, which is denied to faith-based groups. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their rules and codes of guidance to remove provisions that discriminate in wording or in practice against religious bodies. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.