Orders of the Day — Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

House of Commons, 21 November 2000.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

1 beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 95, 96, 114 and 119.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am delighted to speak first in the debate on this group of amendments on the Policing Board, which is at the heart of the landmark new beginning that we are making in policing in Northern Ireland. For the first time in Northern Ireland's history, both traditions and every party can take an equal share in the responsibility for and the ownership of policing. As a result, policing will be more effective and will be representative of the community as a whole, with equal recruitment of Protestants and Catholics, which is a truly radical departure. Patten recommended that an entirely new Policing Board, with the essential element of a majority elected membership, should be created to replace the present Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Government are implementing the Patten recommendations on composition and the board's powers. Indeed, in relation to the board's best value role, the Government have decided to go beyond Patten and strengthen its powers even more. The board will offer greater accountability and transparency in its role than any comparable police body in the UK, the Irish Republic, Europe or North America. I have taken steps to set up the board in shadow form by January. The deadline for applications for independent members ïs tomorrow, and I have notified the four main parties in the Executive that I wish to have the nominations for political members of the board by early December. I want a strong, representative board which, in its initial shadow form, will put crucial jigsaw pieces in place during the creation of the new police service. Patten made clear in recommendation 113 that all community leaders, including political party leaders and local councillors, should encourage members of their side of the community to join the police. I wish to reiterate that recommendation in relation to the board, which should be clear enough encouragement. However, in case it is not, I pray in aid the Good Friday agreement which, in the section on policing and justice, stated that the police arrangements should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community. If political parties take up their seats, they will be in a position to influence the development of the board and the new service from the outset of their work. The lead that they would be giving would contribute powerfully to the new beginning to policing that the whole community deserves and which the Good Friday agreement calls for. The Ulster Unionist party argued in Committee that the board should be obliged to assess both public satisfaction with district policing partnerships and the effectiveness of those partnerships. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will do that. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 make related changes to clause 55, which deals with the board's obligations to report on its assessments of satisfaction and effectiveness. Amendment No. 114 commences on Royal Assent the provisions enabling the shadow Policing Board to be appointed. Given that that process is under way, the Government think it sensible to amend the Bill in that way, rather than make a separate commencement order shortly after Royal Assent. The House amended paragraph 4(5) of schedule 1 to make provision for a member of a direct rule board—which would be constituted during a period of direct rule from Westminster—to be removed if, before his appointment, he had failed to disclose to the Secretary of State a conviction, or if he were convicted of a criminal offence committed after the date of his appointment. We wished to make a similar amendment to the removal provision for a board established during devolution, and amendment No. 119 does that. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Lords amendment No. 119, to which the Secretary of State has just referred, inserts two conditions, the first of which is: in the case of an independent member, he failed, before his appointment, to make to the Secretary of State full disclosure of a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere; and the second is: he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment. In that situation, the Secretary of State may remove that member. The Ulster Unionists have always argued that there should be no distinction between political and independent members, and that the rules relating to one should refer equally to the other. The amendment deals only with an independent member, not with a political member. We can see no reason why the same rule should not apply to both. If a political member has committed a criminal offence which he has not acknowledged, or if he commits a criminal offence after the date of his appointment, he should be treated in exactly the same way as an independent member. That is why we tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 119, which seeks to leave out "an independent" and insert "a". The Lords amendment will then apply to all members of the Policing Board, rather than merely to independent members.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Policing Board has a strategic responsibility to work with the DPPs, and codes guiding their membership and operation will be issued after consultation in due course. I have in mind a collaborative arrangement between the two, but however much the Policing Board might want to encourage, guide, supervise and engage in a constructive dialogue and relationship with the DPPs, its primary responsibility is to ensure that the DPPs are authentic voices of the local community. The DPPs' view is the board's overriding responsibility, as is their dedication to effective policing in their districts, and on that basis, it should respect the operational independence of the police locally, and above all, do whatever it can and needs do to enable the police to do their job properly. That, at the end of the day, is what the police service is there to do—to police, not simply to engage in an on-running democratic dialogue with supervisory bodies.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The board will have, if not powers, extremely strong influence. Of course, residual powers lie with the Secretary of State. I shall want to ensure that the district policing partnerships operate in the way envisaged in the Bill and reflect what Parliament intended when it agreed to the provisions. 5.15 pm I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). We expect and assume that any member of the Policing Board, whether independent or political, will carry the same commitment to democratic, peaceful and non-violent practices and behaviour, as well to effective policing, whatever past or baggage that person takes to the board. The past should be the past, and that should apply to every member of the board, whether independent or political. It is right to distinguish between independent and political members. Political members are appointed because of their democratic mandate. They derive their mandate, authority and membership of the board from direct election by the public, as do Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Good Friday agreement and the Patten report are about inclusiveness and the involvement of democratically elected politicians. I want board members to assume responsibility and to demonstrate their commitment to the work of the board and to the effectiveness of the police. If the public, with knowledge of their past, have seen fit to elect them, it is not for me to override their appointment.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Is the Minister making a value jud4gment? Is he suggesting that an independent board member who has a criminal record that has been concealed or who has committed a crime after his appointment is worse or more unsuitable than somebody who has a political endorsement but carries the same baggage and vulnerabilities?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I have some sympathy with his view, but there is a difference. Elected members have been subject to scrutiny by the electorate, from whom they also receive their endorsement and mandate. As I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Bill contains strong removal provisions. For example, paragraph 9(1)(c) of schedule 1 ensures that the Secretary of State can take action if the political member is convicted after appointment or is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Those chosen are elected with a mandate to an elected body. They are not elected to be part of the running of the police service. Although people may be brought into the one body from different directions, does not subjecting them to different standards within that body involve a danger? The Secretary of State's argument suggests that the late Bobby Sands, while he was in prison having been found guilty of an act of terrorism, was an elected representative, and would therefore have been eligible for membership of the Policing Board.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The electorate vote for people in the knowledge of where they come from, what they bring from the past and what baggage they carry. The hon. Gentleman and I have views about baggage and about what might and might not be appropriate to bring to office. He says that people are elected to become members of a legislature or a Government but not to be involved in the oversight of policing, but I do not see a profound difference in principle between being a member of a Government who have all sorts of responsibilities, including those for policing and security, and being a member of a Policing Board. The Patten commission recommended, the Government have accepted and the Bill makes provision for, a mix of elected members—politicians and representatives of political parties—and independents who do not come from a party political background. Given that the basis of that arrangement is that mix in the composition of the Policing Board, it is not unreasonable for us to respect the will of the voters and the mandate that they give to politicians, rather than to seek to override them. However, if a member, having been appointed to the Policing Board, engaged in criminal activities and was convicted after being prosecuted, or if it emerged that he was not committed to genuinely peaceful and democratic means, that would be a different matter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Recently, a member of Sinn Fein who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly said that if Sinn Fein did not get its way, it would go back to what it did best—bombing. If that person's name came before the right hon. Gentleman, would it be acceptable? How would that person's treatment compare with that of an independent member, who may have violated the law in the past, but who had not in recent years said that he would return to such practices? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "If they have made the promise." What would happen if such people, having made that promise, said that they would return to those practices? Would they be discriminated against—rightly so, in my opinion? They might be told, "No, you have not given us a proper undertaking."

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I cannot provide contingency arrangements for every piece of rhetoric and hyperbole that every member of a political party—Sinn Fein or otherwise—engages in. Heaven knows, if I severed contact with everyone in Northern Ireland who engaged in such rhetoric and hyperbole, I would be left bonding with very few people. On the other hand, if we put aside the rhetoric and hyperbole and the veiled—or not so veiled—threats, and it emerged that a member of the Policing Board was clearly associating himself with anything other than peaceful and democratic means, I would take a very different view.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the Good Friday agreement is the recognition that if we attempted to reach agreement exclusively with people who have always been committed to a democratic road, we would not be able to address the problem? Against that background, it would be eccentric to exclude from the boards people who have moved away from violence and towards democracy.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The whole purpose of the Good Friday agreement and the changes that we are making is to make politics work and to persuade those who were formerly associated with violence to turn away from it and to commit themselves to genuinely peaceful and democratic means. If they are to be committed to those means, there must be institutions, channels and vehicles to enable them to demonstrate that commitment. One cannot insist that they should demonstrate their commitment to genuinely peaceful and democratic means and then erect all sorts of hurdles to prevent them from getting involved in those institutions or channelling their energies in that direction. That would make no sense at all.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made the obvious point that all members of the Policing Board should be treated according to the same rules. However, through the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving, as it were, a favoured position to political appointees if they fail to disclose past criminal convictions. Will he give us some reassurance on that point? Will he himself make inquiries about the criminal convictions of all those who are nominated as political members, and not rely purely on their disclosure of past criminal offences?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand the distinction that I am making, and its practical implications. Independent members of the Policing Board must disclose criminal records as part of the appointments process. The application form requires them to do so. It is therefore entirely logical to provide a means of removal if there is no disclosure. That is the offence that has been created, and the action that flows from it is obvious and appropriate. Those who are elected, on the other hand, and who are put forward to the policing board on behalf of their parties, are not subject to the application and appointment processes in the same way. Therefore the rules are different: they do not apply on the same basis. I merely say that one of the whole points of the Good Friday agreement was to provide for political representatives to be involved in those bodies, and to assume responsibility. I want political representatives of all the parties, from both positions, to assume responsibility for policing. For too long, too many people have removed themselves from that—in some cases for understandable political or historical reasons. I will not go into them now, because we have debated them endlessly in the past. The point now is that, with the new beginning that we are making in policing and under the new political dispensation that we are creating in Northern Ireland, we want everyone to take an equal share of responsibility for policing—and that means taking an equal share of the ownership of the police service. That is what I want.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

What the Secretary of State said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is entirely understandable, but may I posit to him a slightly different scenario? If an individual guilty of precisely the type of rhetoric and hyperbole to which he referred were, in his opinion, unlikely to carry out the threat, but if that individual's words—as a result of inadvertence or advertence—were likely to have the effect of encouraging others to do so, would that, in the Secretary of State's opinion, disqualify the individual concerned from board service?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

It would be very difficult for a member of the Policing Board who was exhorting others to resort to violent means to carry conviction as such a member. There would be a fundamental contradiction between that person's language and actions, and his membership of the board. I think that the whole community would question the bona fides of the member, and I think the action that would follow would be fairly obvious.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I will, for the very last time.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Secretary of State. Shortly before Remembrance Sunday this year, a bomb was intercepted on its way—or so it is believed—to a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station. It was intended to blow it up: it was a barrack-buster. The Sinn Fein Member for the area would not condemn the intended attack. Is the Secretary of State going to tell us that that person would be an appropriate member of a policing board—a person who would not condemn the fact that a bomb was on its way to blow up a police station, and the police personnel inside?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I think that if such circumstances arose, a real inconsistency would be revealed between that person's statements and his or her continued membership of the policing board. Such would be the contradiction that I think it would make the person's continued membership of the board impossible—in moral terms, if in no other terms. The amendments primarily address the relationship between the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships. We have been talking mainly about the Policing Board, but I think that many of the sentiments expressed today apply equally to the partnerships: what goes for one goes for the rest. On that basis, I commend the amendments.

POLICE SUPPORT STAFF

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 13, Lords amendment No. 26 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 58, 63, 66, 68, 97, 109 to 112, 116 to 118, 120 to 122, 124, 125, 128 to 137 and 139.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The vast majority of the amendments are minor, drafting and technical. Many are concerned with clearing up stray references to the name of the police as a result of changes in this place. Others remove redundant wording, ensure consistency of numerical cross-referencing and effect other consequential changes. Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 to clause 72 give effect to the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Some noteworthy amendments are included in the group. Amendment No. 26 provides for the board to assess the training and education needs of police officers and support staff, and to give particulars of how those needs are to be met. The Government have been convinced by arguments that the significance of the issue merits its inclusion in primary legislation. Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 make changes to clause 12, requiring the board, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep accounts in respect of the police funds. The Government were persuaded that the amendments would help to make it clear that the Chief Constable is exercising a delegated function and that the money and the accounts "belong" to the board. Therefore, the Chief Constable will be the accounting officer for the police grant, as recommended by Patten, but the board will hold him to account for his use of resources. I commend the amendments to the House. I wait to hear what my hon. Friends have to say on their amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26. I hope that I will be able to persuade them of the merits of our approach, rather than theirs.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I draw the attention of the House to amendment (a), in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I hope that the House will divide on it if my right hon. Friend cannot accept it. Lords amendment No. 26 would make a welcome change to clause 26 on the policing plan. It seeks to ensure that the plan shall contain an assessment of the requirements for educating and training police officers and members of the police support staff. My amendment would then insert the phrase particularly with regard to human rights. My right hon. Friend will recall that throughout the Bill's passage, in this House and in another place, the question of human rights has been very much to the fore, because the Patten report said training was one of the keys to instilling a human rights-based approach into both new recruits and experienced police personnel. It went on to say that fundamental principles and standards of human rights and the practical implications for policing were to be specially recommended. Given the background to the situation, the pressures in the House and the statements that have been made by Ministers, one would think that such recommendations would have been driven home to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, when 1 put down a parliamentary question asking my right hon. Friend about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's assessment of police training programmes under the Human Rights Act 1998, he referred me to the Human Rights Commissioner, who sent me his assessment. My hon. Friend the Minister of State also received a copy so that he could place it in the Library. The result of the commission's inquiry was a surprising, disappointing and disturbing document. The commission pointed out that it was almost two years after the passing of the Human Rights Act—April 2000—that the RUC started providing courses. They were all one-day courses. The report states: The majority of RUC personnel participated in a one-day training course given by internal RUC trainers. No external element was involved with the majority of the RUC personnel. It went on to say that strategic command officers—who occupy quite a high level in the service—received training but, again, only for one day. Special branch also received training for one day only. It is not my intention to comment on everything in the report, but the commission makes some interesting points. Paragraph 10 says: The Human Rights Act training programme was not piloted with a sample of the audience at which it was aimed. To do so would have been normal practice in the provision of new large programmes of this nature. Under the heading "Evaluation and Monitoring", the report says: The Commission drew the RUC's attention to the need for internal valuation and independent external evaluation of the training … No evidence has been provided of any formal evaluation system of the course, either externally or internally. On lay outside involvement, the commission doubts whether the training contract was put out to tender. It says: The majority of participants received their training from RUC trainers, with only the Strategic Command receiving training from lay trainers or lecturers. The report went on to make observations on the training, and included several important points. A number of talks were given, of which it said: Of the talks, three were reasonably good … One speaker in particular adopted a fairly searching and critical approach, suggesting that a variety of RUC practices would need to be re-examined in the light of the Human Rights Act's commencement. However, the report goes on to say: One speaker's talk was not so good—it tended towards saying that some people get over-excited by human rights and that there are human rights activists who give the subject a bad name.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Quite right.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that, given his reputation on human rights. Is this really what one would want in a training exercise? The terrible thing was that, according to the report: Several officers nodded in agreement with the points made in this speech, but their views were not brought out into the open and discussed. They were not challenged, either, although the report does not say that. On special branch training, the report said: The training for Special Branch was to last a full day but the trainer dropped a number of items from the training programme, including an exercise where the police officers being trained would discuss the issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998 likely to affect their work. In the most contentious branch of the service, therefore, the most important element of the training programme—lasting only one day—was dropped from the curriculum. The report goes on to say, at paragraph 20: It is the Commission's view that on this occasion the tutor gave the training very superficial treatment. This relates to the most fundamental questions being discussed: human rights, the Good Friday agreement, the whole atmosphere of the Patten report, special branch and special training—yet the trainer gave the training very superficial treatment. The report goes on: He constantly undermined the reasons why he was giving the training and sped through it. He said to his audience that he did not want to talk about their work, and that they really did not need the training. His remarks included "I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs here", "We all know the circumstances when you do use handcuffs" (when in fact there were different views on when you do use handcuffs) and "It's as clear as mud". Those comments were made by a tutor to special branch, the most controversial part of the RUC, which has a reputation for being less than accurate in its observance of the European convention on human rights. Paragraph 22 of the report states: The tutor's knowledge about human rights appeared to be weak … He had a complete inability to field questions about the Act, e. g. the proportionate level of force appropriate to deal with a person on drugs who has a knife and is involved in a stand-off with police. Paragraph 23 states: The trainer demonstrated a poor attitude to t0he training. in that he reinforced a negative view of the Act expressed by some participants at the start of the training. The trainer made discriminatory comments during the session (whilst the group did not join in, no-one challenged him). Not one member of special branch challenged the discriminatory nature of the observations that the trainer made. The paragraph—let us remember that this is a report by the Human Rights Commission on a course being given to special branch on the implementation of the Human Rights Act—continues: He also referred to old people as "custard-dribbling old fools" and there were constant derogatory comments about people suing the RUC as "toe-rags" and the "£600 per hour". 5.45 pm Paragraph 24 of the report continues: Unexpected interventions were made by the trainer in that he offered suggestions as to how to get around several of the Act's requirements. That is pretty good, is it not? What was the evaluation of the Human Rights Commission? It says: The training appeared to be done in a vacuum. There was a failure to address the recommendations of "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland 1999". On the standard of training, the report said: The serious flaws in the delivery of the training by the one internal RUC trainer and one of the external speakers indicate that there were significant weaknesses in the training programme. The commission is therefore not confident that the training course was adequately delivered. On content, the commission found that the focus of the human rights training was very narrow and legalistic. The commission considered the management of the human rights training to have been flawed in several key ways.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

When I have finished my comments, I will certainly give way. The commission continued: The lack of piloting, failure to carry out formal internal or external evaluations and the lack of any obvious monitoring of the integration of human rights principles into practice seriously undermined the effectiveness of the training programme. In addition, management's failure to identify the internal trainer's weaknesses and the continued use of the inappropriate external speaker indicates a flawed process for the delivery of training on such a significant topic as human rights. On international standards, which will be a later reference, the commission said: At the meeting on 11 August 1999, the Chief Constable assured the Commission that the RUC were benchmarking its progress in relation to international standards through its relationship with both the Garda Siochana and the Council of Europe. The Commission found little evidence of training in international standards other than those in the ECHR or of benchmarking of progress through training to date. The report concludes: All in all the Commission concludes that, while the RUC has shown a willingness, even an enthusiasm, to engage with the Commission, they have been less ready to implement the Commission's recommendations or to treat the Commission's views with the seriousness they deserve. The Commission acknowledges that the RUC have done a lot of work to prepare for the commencement of the Human Rights Act, but we are not convinced that this work has always been of the appropriate nature or standard. If a school had an Ofsted report of that nature, it would be put under special measures. That is the position of that—

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

rose—

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I will give way in a moment. That is the effect of that very damning document.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has quoted at considerable length from a report produced by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. He has been giving us the views and the evaluations of the commission and no doubt regards its opinions as particularly authoritative. A large number of people in Northern Ireland, myself included, think that that commission has no credibility in view of the discriminatory process by which it was formed and of quite a few of the persons on it. The commission's evaluations will lack credibility in view of the record of many of its members.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

One has always wondered about the soundness of the right hon. Gentleman in some of his comments about the Human Rights Commission—and those of some of his colleagues. The commission came straight out of the Good Friday agreement. His party took the same attitude to the former Human Rights Commission, which was established under the Hillsborough agreement. The matter also reflects strongly on my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. I assume that they will speak strongly in favour of the commission and its members, whom they appointed. There were some applicants who would have made excellent members, but they did not quite make it on to the commission. I realise why Unionists might be disappointed about that. However, I understand that there is a Unionist majority on the HRC.

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

May I make it clear that the statement made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) does not represent the views of the community throughout Northern Ireland? Many people—myself included—have great admiration for the HRC and the work it has carried out. In relation to paragraph 23 of the HRC report, will the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tell us whether it is possible to identify the tutor—if I should even use that word to describe him—who described old people as "custard-dribbling old fools", so that the matter can be referred to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and so that the tutor is no longer employed anywhere within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that someone who describes older people in that way does not deserve to hold such a position.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his stalwart support of the HRC. In the report, that particular tutor was referred to as a trainer and I understand that he was a member of the RUC. If that is not correct, I apologise in advance. The document offers a serious indictment of RUC human rights training. That training is narrow, legalistic and critical of the Human Rights Act 1998; it sneers at people who, with great courage and at personal risk, stood up for the human rights of members of all the communities in Northern Ireland and who were stalwart in their defence of the RUC when it impartially upheld the rule of law. Such people were criticised and undermined in the training course that the RUC had adopted to bring new ideas—a new dimension—to the whole ethos of policing in Northern Ireland.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland, many people—including members of the judiciary—have serious reservations about human rights legislation? Those reservations are not confined to the RUC. Although there are fundamental differences between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, I share his view that a large majority of people in Northern Ireland have great reservations about the competence, partiality and fairness of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I should have been very surprised indeed if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made that comment; he would certainly not have let himself be outgunned by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will express his confidence in the HRC when he winds up the debate, I point out that my amendment is driven by the report of the commission. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the amendment.

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

Following the startling revelations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), it is even more important that we accept his amendment to Lords amendment No. 26. We should have liked to pursue in some detail the way in which the performance of police officers could be appraised, but unfortunately our amendment (b) was not selected. I remind the Minister of State that in Committee the Government made available the draft regulations setting out the minimum requirements for the Policing Board's policing plan—training, education and the development of a strategy for the police that would, I sincerely hope, include the human rights appreciation and training to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North alluded. It is noticeable, however, that the regulations did not deal with arrangements for the appraisal of the performance of police officers or of civilian support staff. Does the Minister agree that that is most illogical? Training, tutoring and the appraisal of its effectiveness must surely go hand in hand. I hope that the training, education and development strategy will set out how officers are to be trained. That must require an appraisal programme to examine whether the goals and objectives of the training are adequate and how they have been put into practice. Surely that is a natural step. My hon. Friend has amply illustrated the fact that the police do not need to "toughen up" their appraisal system; if anything, they need to introduce one-starting from scratch. There is a conflict of interest in any society that is self-policing; the police cannot police the police. My hon. Friend clearly demonstrated that the police cannot appraise and reform themselves. The Patten report bore that out. It found substantial defects in the appraisal system that was being applied by the Chief Constable at the time. In particular, the system was not used when promotions were being considered; there was no proper appraisal of performance. Patten found that the systems of internal accountability needed substantial improvement. It would thus make sense to ensure that the new board has a new beginning, and draws up an appraisal strategy. Will Ministers offer the House clarification? Will the regulations require the annual policing plan to include details of arrangements for the appraisal of police officers? If they do not, no assessment can be made of the training and development of officers. Surely, the lack of appraisal of the performance of their duties is not good management practice. Will the Minister of State take that point on board and give us an undertaking that an appraisal strategy requirement will be written into the regulations?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have some brief comments in support of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I shall touch on the HRC report to which he referred. As one who, many years ago, taught on a police training course that led to the award of the Scottish higher national certificate in police studies—some of my former students became senior officers in the Lothian and Borders police force—I found the contents of the report deeply disquieting, despite the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the commission and some of its members. If a trainer, teacher or tutor in most higher education establishments spoke to students in the same way as that tutor spoke to RUC members, he or she would be subject to—at the least—a severe reprimand. We are moving into new fields of human rights training. Northern Ireland is ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in establishing the Human Rights Commission and acknowledging the need for human rights training for police officers and others. I look forward to similar developments in Scotland, but mistakes will be made in such training courses. Whatever the right hon. Member for Upper Bann might think about the report's authors, if what it says about the trainers is true, how can the students take such training seriously? 6 pm In fairness to the report's authors, I should point out that, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann knows, they acknowledge in their concluding remarks that although the RUC have shown a willingness, even an enthusiasm, to engage with the Commission, they have been less ready to implement the Commission's recommendations. The authors go on to state: The Commission acknowledges that the RUC have done a lot of work to prepare for the commencement of the Human Rights Act … It is not easy for police officers anywhere to learn those skills, but it is part and parcel of their duties to be familiar with developments in human rights training. I hope that 1 can catch the Minister's attention because I want to ask him a question. What comparable evidence has his Department about the human rights training of police officers elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Europe and other English-speaking countries? The human rights training of trainers should be considered first and the very best methods, especially in teaching, should be adopted. On the basis of my experience—albeit dated—I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North that police officers, especially the junior ranks, are not the easiest students to teach. They are not very docile, and if they challenge their trainers they do not miss them and hit the wall. That is how things should be when training junior, middle-ranking and senior police officers, but the trainers must be highly competent in their subjects or they should not teach them. What evidence has the Minister about such training elsewhere? What training do the trainers receive before they stand in front of RUC officers? We owe it to the officers to give them the very best trainers. As an ex-teacher who years ago used to talk about human rights in Edinburgh, I have to say that a day-long course in human rights training is simply not good enough. Although the right hon. Member for Upper Bann might have some reservations about the report's authors, its comments on the training, the trainers, the programme and so on are disturbing. Human rights training must be re-evaluated, and police officers need more than they have been given until now; they deserve better. We are performing a disservice to police officers by offering them such scanty, sparse training in the important matter of human rights. Much more needs to be done for the officers and the communities that they seek to serve.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments following the speeches of Government Members. I welcome the more balanced position of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and I take on board his reference to the fact that he trained some folk for the SHNC. The RUC possibly has many more academic people than any other comparable police force in the United Kingdom. For years, the RUC has worked with external education authorities to train its members in different aspects. As part of a parliamentary police scheme, I spent six days working specifically with the RUC and understand some of the issues that have been raised. I want to consider specifically the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Unless I misheard him completely, there was a contradiction in one of his statements. He said that no one reacted, but shortly afterwards he said that one person objected. We seem to be cherry picking from a report, and I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for his more balanced position and the tribute that he paid to what is happening. Long before the Human Rights Commission was set up, the RUC consistently brought in people from outside to try to share with new recruits and older hands the different feelings in the community so that they would understand the issues that they had to face.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I shall give way when I have finished making the point. It is unfair to use such an opportunity to deal with one aspect of policing—human rights—without bearing in mind that police officers have human rights, too. I should have been more encouraged if a Labour Member had spoken of the pressures under which the RUC works. At the weekend, I asked a young man whether he was working and he said, "I've just finished two weeks' leave—TOIL: time off in lieu." The force cannot pay its men and women for the overtime that it demands of them, and the RUC's morale has been affected as a result. The rights of the police, as well as those of others, should be given a little more consideration in the House.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

rose—

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

rose—

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing me his usual courtesy. I sometimes think that that costs me votes back home, but that is another story. I was not paying tribute to the training that the officers have undergone, but—perhaps in Delphic terms—severely criticising its sparsity and what appears to be the incompetence, to put it mildly, of some of the trainers.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate that if we had been considering a report on Ofsted, many right hon. and hon. Members would have criticised Ofsted, but the whole training system is being challenged because one person has been criticised.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The sentence to which I referred states: Only one person drew attention to the international documents other than the Convention. None of the other statements was challenged by those who were present. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misheard me.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate that clarification, but we must be balanced in presenting selective comments from any report.

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

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but there seemed to be a danger of polarisation and I thought that, as a self-confessed, paid up custard dribbler, I might add something, especially as last year I had the pleasure of attending an RUC training day in which the specific topic was human rights. I attended with considerable enthusiasm because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), my background is in teaching such subjects. As most hon. Members know, I was a lecturer in philosophy before I became a Member of Parliament, so I had a professional interest in the training as well as other interests. I was extremely impressed by the content of that day's training. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will be disappointed when I say that. I was impressed by the serious way in which the police had taken the need to make junior recruits understand the limitations of their own views in relation to their function as police officers. That is not peculiar to Northern Ireland; it goes through the whole of policing. People have to deal with the kind of people whom they have never previously met or sought to understand and they have to relate to them as fellow human beings and treat them with respect. I felt that the content of the training was good, but I agree with the human rights report that it had significant limitations. I do not believe that they were a product of some nasty plot by the RUC or a desire to do the job shabbily. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, I believe that the time devoted to the training was much too short. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said. There was a definite lack of an international dimension. After the training session, we had a debriefing about what had gone on during the day. The RUC officers and the Chief Constable in particular were interested in the comments made by the members of the Select Committee. They wanted to take the comments on board positively and to see how they could improve the programme so that it would be much more responsive. It is right that we flag up the issue of human rights; whether it needs to be written into the Bill, I am not sure. Some of the comments that have been made tonight have not been terrifically helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North gave a good speech in favour of sacking a certain tutor, and I am sure that the House supports that, not because of the quality of his jokes but because some things that he said showed that he did not understand the role of a human rights agenda. There is much that is valuable in the Human Rights Commission report. I believe that the RUC is more than willing to respond positively to many of the ideas in it, and I look forward to being invited back to Northern Ireland.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

My speech was based on a report sent to me in reply to a parliamentary question. It was not something that I made up. I have a copy of the report here that my hon. Friend can read. It is outrageous. My hon. Friend suggested that I delighted in it. I did not, because I want the thing to work. I want the police to adopt the ideas in it. I want a balanced police force drawn from both communities.

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

All that I am saying is that there is still a long way to go. I agree with the report to that extent. I agreed with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) when he said that a bit of cherry picking had been going on. Overall, big changes are being made that are welcome and that the Chief Constable and other senior officers in the RUC are taking seriously. I know from the time that I served on the Select Committee that my colleagues on the Committee agree with those remarks. I hope that we can read the comments in the report not as comments made by people whom we do not trust, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, but as comments containing a grain of truth. The police are responding positively to the solid core of criticism that the report contains. I hope that out of that more balanced picture we will begin to see a more positive way forward in police training and education in human rights and the laws that relate to them.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I welcome his comments. As I said in the debate on the allocation of time motion, he and his party were very much involved in the consideration of a wide range of issues aimed at improving the original draft. I confirm the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the amendments to which he alluded. He asked how amendments Nos. 110 and 111 would be put into effect. As I said in my opening remarks, they give effect to the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They provide for orders and regulations under clause 46—the renewal of the 50:50 provisions—and under clause 52, on emblems and flags, to be made by the affirmative procedure. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether the orders and regulations would be debated is yes. The main thrust of our consideration has been the wider issue of human rights and related matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke to amendment (a) to amendment No. 26. I shall deal with the amendment and then with the wider issues raised by the report to which he referred. Amendment (a) specifies that the training strategy should refer specifically to human rights. Paragraph 16.4 of the Patten report contains a list of areas that the training strategy should cover. As well as human rights, the report said that the strategy should cover accountability, communication, partnership policing, decentralisation and all the other areas of change covered by the recommendations. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government's commitment to human rights cannot be in question. I remind the House that it was an early act of the new Labour Government to incorporate the European convention on human rights in domestic law and set up the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. People might have questions about the make-up of the commission, but its establishment was an important step. I pay tribute to the work of members of the commission as they have begun to learn how to conduct their business. They are on a learning curve. They may have expertise in human rights, but they all bring different expertise to the table. I am sure that as they evolve they will become sharper and more knowledgeable and that they will learn from experience as the process goes forward. The Government are also committed to the other areas mentioned in the Patten report—accountability, communication, partnership policing, decentralisation and the other recommendations. I believe that they are all complementary; they are all part of a whole. It would be wrong to single out one issue for special attention, even though we recognise the importance of human rights and the fact that the concept of human rights underpins everything that we have sought to do in the Bill and beyond. I have listened to the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on the specifics of the amendment. I hope that he hears what I am saying. We give due prominence to human rights, but we have to take all the other areas into account. My hon. Friend referred to the human rights report. He takes a strongly critical view. Others have also referred to the report. There is no question but that from one perspective it can be seen to be highly critical of the measures that the commission studied. However, the report specifically complimented the RUC on approaching the issue with enthusiasm. I shall now repeat an argument that others have mentioned. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was not in the Chamber for part of the debate, but I am sure that he remembers only too well the third report of 1997–98 of his Committee, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on the composition, recruitment and training of the RUC. The report, which predated the introduction of the human rights approach as envisaged in the legislation, complimented the RUC on its training methods—its use of awareness programmes and other elements. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) made a helpful contribution in that regard, on the basis of his practical experience of observing a training programme that was being conducted predating—

George Turner (Labour, North West Norfolk)

Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary—in its 1999 report, 1 believe—made it very clear that some of the criticisms of the RUC could be directed at almost every police force in the United Kingdom? We should recognise that although the issue is especially important in the RUC's training, it is a national issue.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am grateful for that intervention and I am being very careful in my thought processes on this subject. I recognise that all police services have a very difficult role to play. They are moving through a rapid process of transition, not only in Northern Ireland, and not just within the UK, but internationally as well, and much has to be undertaken. Many mistakes have been made in the past, and I hope that those lessons will be learned. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary comments, very helpfully and constructively, on what lessons can be learned and the way to proceed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution, but we are now dealing specifically with the RUC. I was referring to the report from which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North quoted at length. I was saying that others could quote from it selectively to show that the RUC is very committed and that improvements could be made. The report states that the course should have been piloted, that there should have been more time for questions and that insufficient time was devoted to context. It seems to me that that is only to be expected in any large exercise, especially in a large exercise that is being tackled for the first time. I suspect that the police were not the only sizeable organisation to have faced a major challenge in delivering this new training. I suspect that that applies throughout the Government sector, and where it impacts on the private sector people have had to undergo significant training. I am sure that many lawyers are going through that process, and critical reports might appear on the human rights training that lawyers are receiving. We are dealing with a new approach; we are trying to build on experience and move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said that there was no external involvement in the courses. That is not so, because the university of Ulster was involved, and its involvement predated the measures that we are passing tonight. I compliment the RUC and the Chief Constable and his senior officers seizing what is a very difficult issue—the management of the process of change, with this heavy overlay of a new Act of domestic law, which is having an impact throughout the government system and beyond.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, he seems to be missing the point of the amendment, which is that we now have a demonstrable failure, in one instance, of the application of the RUC's training to address human rights properly. The import of the amendment is that it would ensure that there is a requirement on the face of the Bill for the RUC to do that, and that this is not just one duty among others. To quote Patten, it is a central proposition of the Report that the fundamental purpose of policing should be in the words of the agreement— the protection and vindication of human rights.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of that there is no question, and the Bill delivers on that commitment. The Government have delivered on that wider commitment by incorporating the human rights legislation in domestic law and setting up the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We have taken that forward as a Government. I was explaining that we could spend a long time looking at the criticisms and ignoring the many compliments that have been paid, by independent assessors among others, to the role played by the Chief Constable and the RUC in taking forward that management of change. The report that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred to acknowledged that the RUC has done a great deal of work and has shown an enthusiasm to engage with the commission. Those are complimentary statements, which my hon. Friend read out, and we may derive some confidence from them. There is no evidence that the RUC is resiling from its position. If there are weaknesses in the system, a new Policing Board will take on responsibility for dealing with them. Lords amendment No. 26 would give the board responsibility to have a training, education and development strategy; to assess the training and development needs of police officers and police support staff; and to give particulars of the way in which those requirements are to be met— thus placing that responsibility on the board. The draft regulations, which have been published, again give the Policing Board responsibility for setting out Details of performance appraisal systems for police officers. Thus we have the RUC, or the new police service for Northern Ireland, delivering on that commitment, and the Policing Board, thereby and thereafter, monitoring all that. That is a robust set of mechanisms, and it does not diminish in any way the commitment to human rights. Human rights were part of an overall grouping in the Patten report, which is why we have left it as part of a whole. There can be an interconnection and an interplay between each of those elements, and they should be seen as part of the whole. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North that the Government are committed to human rights education. I believe that the Chief Constable and the new police service will be committed to it, and the checks and balances will rest with the new Policing Board, which will have very significant responsibilities in that respect. This is a developing situation; it is the beginning of a very complex issue. One report does not damn the future. It reflects only on the assessment at that moment. I emphasise that the Government have not yet responded to the report because we are awaiting the Chief Constable's assessment. He may have trenchant comments to make on what has been said. It is not enough simply to accept what has been said by the Human Rights Commission. Until the commission's description of what happened that day has been properly tested by questioning others who were there, we must judge it in the round on that basis, although I accept that there are very strong points of view within the report.

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

I ask the Minister to answer the simple question that I asked in my short intervention: will he introduce regulations to ensure that an appraisal strategy is in place to appraise the education and the work of RUC police officers? That is straightforward, and almost follows from his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am sorry that I did not refer to my hon. Friend specifically—I probably would have done so in my concluding remarks. The passage that I read from the draft regulations deals specifically with that issue. The regulations place on the board an obligation that The Board's Policing Plan shall include…details of performance appraisal systems for police officers. That function therefore moves away from the police. I do not know which hon. Member commented that it was not for the police to police themselves. They will not do so because, in the regulations and on the face of the Bill, that is an important function to be performed by the new Policing Board. For that reason, I hope that the new Policing Board will be given a fair wind. I hope that the amendments will be supported.

ANNUAL REPORT BY DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP TO COUNCIL

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 23.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Under the Bill, at the end of the financial year, each district policing partnership will be obliged to submit a general report to its district council. The Bill provides that a copy should be sent to the Policing Board by the council. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland expressed the concern that a council might accidentally or otherwise delay sending the board a copy of the report and it argues that a DPP should send the board the report at the same time as it sends it to a council. That seems to us a sensible proposition, so the Government accepted the point made by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 give effect to that. Clause 19 provides that the board may issue a code of practice on the exercise by DPPs of their functions. The Government were pressed to amend the word "may" to "shall"—that old chestnut. We accepted that argument, and amendments Nos. 16 to 19 give effect to it. The Bill now provides that the board "shall" issue a code of practice relating to DPPs', exercise of their functions. Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 combine to provide that a district commander may be a regular officer or reservist. As the Bill stands, he may be a regular officer only, but the Government see no need to make such a distinction—hence the amendments. On amendment No. 22, under clause 21, each sub-group of the Belfast DPP is to provide views to the police and to the board. The Bill should have referred to the police and the Belfast partnership. The amendment fulfils a commitment that the Government made in this House to correct that reference. Amendment No. 23 is a drafting change to clarify the fact that the word "district" in the last line of clause 21(2) means a police district.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I confirm that interpretation. On the basis of my explanation, I commend the amendments to the House.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S LONG TERM POLICING OBJECTIVES

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

This group of amendments deals with consultation on a range of issues. Amendment No. 24 will remove the ombudsman from the list of those to be consulted by the Secretary of State when determining long-term policing objectives and amendment No. 25 will similarly remove her from the list of those to be consulted by the Policing Board on its objectives. Consultation with the ombudsman was raised by Conservative peers in Committee in the other place and, having discussed the issue with the ombudsman, we accept that her role in planning would be relatively limited and that a formal consultative role would be excessive—hence amendments Nos. 24 and 25. Amendment No. 27 specifies that, before prescribing the statements and particulars that the Policing Board should include in the policing plan, the Secretary of State shall consult the board and the Chief Constable. It responds to concerns that the Secretary of State would make regulations altering the content of the plan without consultation. That was never the intention. Amendment No. 28 will oblige the Secretary of State to consult other appropriate persons or bodies—in addition to the Policing Board and Chief Constable—before issuing or revising a code of practice issued under clause 27. That meets concerns that, when relevant—obviously it will not always be—the views of bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland should be sought. Amendment No. 93 includes the ombudsman in the list of those whom the Secretary of State should consult before issuing or revising guidance on the police's use of equipment for maintaining or restoring public order. It is clear that, through her investigations, the ombudsman will gather information that will be relevant to the guidance. For example, in investigating complaints about the use of plastic baton rounds, she may have details to feed in on their usage, by police district, on the occasions most likely to lead to injury, and so on. Amendment No. 94 widens the scope for the Secretary of State to consult on the regulations as to emblems and flags before coming to any decisions. He is currently obliged to consult the board, the Chief Constable and the Police Association. The Government's consistent position has been that a new beginning requires a new name for the police service, and that a new name requires a new badge and a new flag based on it. The new name is prescribed by the legislation that also gives me the power to prescribe the badge. However, I want to try to obtain cross-community consensus on that if I possibly can. It is important to do so given that these matters are extremely sensitive and fraught. Patten's view was that the badge should be entirely free from any association with either the British or the Irish state. I said in June that the Government did not accept that this should necessarily be so. That is still my view. I have never seen the symbols of the police service for Northern Ireland as an issue of sovereignty or of getting symbols that represent the British state. However—we must be frank about this—that is not how others see the issue, and we must understand and appreciate why that is so. I illustrate my point from some of the contributions that were made in the other place when a specific amendment was tabled suggesting that the existing badge of the RUC—crown and all—should be carried over to the new police service for Northern Ireland. The amendment was moved, debated and defeated in the other place, but I refer to that debate only to show how difficult and fraught the issue becomes when it is mixed up with the issue of sovereignty and the constitutional argument in Northern Ireland. In the debate, one Conservative viscount said that the crown should be retained in the police badge because it symbolises Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom and that, if it were removed from the badge, that would be an attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. I attended the debate and listened from the Bar of the other House to all the contributions that were made. Another Conservative peer said that the crown should be retained because it is dear to Unionism. I am the first to acknowledge—I readily do so—that the crown is dear to Unionism for all the obvious reasons. However, that shows why the presence of the crown on the badge is objectionable to many nationalists. It clearly identifies the police service with one side of the constitutional argument in Northern Ireland, not with the community as a whole. Conservative Members of the other place made that clear in their contributions to the debate on whether the RUC's existing badge should be maintained and carried over. That illustrates the difficulties in reaching a cross-community consensus—which we need to do—on the badge and emblems of the new police service. The last thing that I should like to happen—I hope that other hon. Members would agree—is for the new police service to be a platform for resuming the age—old constitutional quarrel that has dogged and divided Northern Ireland society for so long.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Is there not another reason—perhaps the same one as was raised when we discussed flags orders? It is a matter not of allegiance, but of reality. A police officer, even if we change the oath as we have, is a Crown officer. All law in this country derives from the Crown. Are we not in danger of entering a state of unreality when we remove that? Is it not better to stick to the reality of the situation while we seek to implement the other changes?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

In logic and legislative premise, the hon. Gentleman may be absolutely correct, but I must bring him back to reality. When we invoke a symbol of the British state—such as the crown—in such constitutional terms when debating or determining the emblem of a police service that we are trying to draw from the community as a whole and to which the entire community, with two distinctive traditions, wants to owe allegiance, he will appreciate that there is more than one reality. I want to create a police service with a uniform, badge and emblems that every member of the service is comfortable with and proud to wear. On that basis, it behoves us to ensure that there is nothing about the police service's name, uniform or badge that drives away one side of the community because it is construed as offensive to one tradition or another. Above all, in practical terms, we do not want to make it harder to recruit people from both traditions.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

When the Secretary of State talks of the crown, he will be aware that that is only one aspect of the current insignia, and that the harp is also important. While the crown symbolises British Government and law, the harp is used on all official documents of the Irish Government and on Irish passports. Unionists can accept the incorporation of the harp within the badge and do not get offended or upset, because we see our tradition represented by the crown. Can we not have a bit of maturity and use the shamrock and harp to represent the nationalist tradition and the crown to represent the Unionist tradition? The Secretary of State is in danger of misleading the House by focusing simply on the crown. He knows that the insignia cover more than that and are a cross-community symbol that draws on the traditions of both communities.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point extremely well. His comfortableness with the presence of the harp, a symbol that he associates with the Irish state, reflects the strength, security and self-confidence that he feels in such matters. He has to understand, however, that people from the other tradition in Northern Ireland are not as relaxed about symbols of the British state. 6.45 pm It is true that the current insignia of the RUC badge contain the crown and the harp, and the hon. Gentleman would be making a good point if he was saying that the design was intended to provide a balance, an equality and a parity of esteem—although I am not sure that he was. To follow his logic, that is why, given that elements of the badge are associated with both traditions, I would be rather relaxed about continuing that balance and reflection of both traditions, as I have already said. However, my point is different and important. It is illustrated, as I tried to explain, by Members of the other place who, in seeking to justify the continuation of the present badge and the retention of the crown, made it clear that it symbolises not a parity of esteem or a reflection of both traditions but, as the noble viscount explained, Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. In their view, removal of the crown would constitute an attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Such an argument puts us in danger of crossing the line from what is a proper—and, in some people's view, even appropriate—reflection of both traditions in Northern Ireland to a position where we are using the crown, insignia and badge of the police service to provide a proxy for continuing the constitutional argument and quarrel in Northern Ireland; and that is precisely what we should all be united in wanting to remove from the police service, as the Patten report originally proposed. Hon. Members will know that I have never been entirely persuaded by the argument in favour of neutrality, but if we have equality and not neutrality, the argument about the symbols cannot be played out as a proxy fight to continue the constitutional quarrel about the status of Northern Ireland.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Has my right hon. Friend considered the heraldic significance of the badge, which displays not parity of esteem but all power coming from the Crown? That is why people who do not accept that interpretation cannot be comfortable with it.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Well, now: careful, careful.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Have a word with the Duke of Norfolk.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I will indeed have a word with the Duke of Norfolk, but it will have to wait for another day. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if, instead, I conclude my remarks. The battle is to achieve something that will get us consensus rather than controversy. I cannot conceive of rejecting the board's proposals for the new police service badge, and it is to the board that I shall turn in the first instance for its views and agreement on the new badge. I cannot conceive of rejecting the board's proposals if they reflect a genuine consensus within it and are capable of receiving community-wide support in the new police service. Incidentally, by consensus I am not talking about a 10:9 vote, or even a 14:5 vote if all the nationalists or all the Unionist Assembly Members of the board voted against. My hope is that the whole board will be able to rally round a preferred option, and there will not be a narrow vote with a thin majority to try to drive through someone's view and overcome the sensitivities of others. Even if unanimity cannot be achieved, I am looking for the board to come forward with proposals that command genuine cross-community support. That is majority support from each tradition on the board. If the board fails to do that, as I have said, and as the Bill provides, I shall have to call the matter myself. In those circumstances, I would not impose an outcome which would deter recruitment from either side of the community. That would be the ultimate folly, and completely self-defeating. Having come all this way with all the pain that this legislation has involved, it would be folly if we were to throw away the ultimate prize on a wrong call over the badge or emblem of the police, which then succeeded in sparking controversy and alienating one side and deterring recruitment.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Minister has said that he does not wish to extend the constitutional debate to the issue of insignia. However, has not the right hon. Gentleman claimed that in one sense the constitutional issue has been settled on the basis of the principle of consent, and that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom until a majority decides otherwise? That being the case, what objection can there be to the badge of a force that is upholding the Queen's peace? The Queen's peace is upheld in the mainland and Northern Ireland, the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What objection can there be to the use of the crown as an emblem? It is not—

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. Not for the first time, and although I would not follow him in all his language, he has probably put my argument better than I did. I believe that the principle of consent has resolved the age-old quarrel, and that enables us to put that quarrel and the violence that is associated with it behind us once and for all. That does not mean that people will not pursue their legitimate aspirations and political objectives, depending on the tradition from which they come. However, they do so by peaceful and democratic means on the basis of the principle of consent that the hon. and learned Gentleman has described. I accept that. The problem arises when others come in and reinterpret the meaning or implications of the inclusion of such symbols as the crown in the police insignia, and start reading into it certain constitutional implications which I fear would reignite the quarrel. The police service would be embroiled in a quarrel which I believe is a matter for politics and not for policing. The quarrel should be resolved on the basis of the principle of consent and not by some proxy means involving various and different symbols. Lords amendment No. 101 adds the ombudsman to the list of those to whom the Policing Board shall send a copy of any reports of inquiries held. There is already a requirement to notify the ombudsman of inquiries under clause 58(2)(a). With those words, I commend the amendments to the House.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

rose—

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

rose—

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

It is—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I hope that I rose as quickly as I was allowed to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not like to embarrass you. Lords amendment No. 93, which worries my colleagues and me, relates to the ombudsman. I shall speak only on this amendment, and I shall do so relatively briefly. To summarise, the amendment would insist that the ombudsman be consulted in simple terms when, for example, the police might be using baton rounds. That is extremely dangerous, and I shall explain why. I refer to the definition of ombudsman in the "New Oxford Dictionary". It reads: An official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities. I submit that the position of the ombudsman is severely compromised by her having a view on issues such as baton rounds publicly expressed, when she might well in future have to investigate complaints—many of them perhaps legitimate—about police action involving baton rounds. That puts her in an invidious position. It is wrong that the ombudsman should be so consulted. Without being disrespectful to the present or any future ombudsman, I do not believe that that is her role or anything to do with her. She has plenty to do in investigating complaints. I think that the Minister will confirm that we supported the setting up of the ombudsman. There was nothing between us on the issue. I believe that the ombudsman should sit in judgment on complaints that are sent to her. It is not possible for her to do so if she has already given a view on the matter. If that were to happen in any other court or on any other occasion where an independent person was considering an appeal, I think that there would be judicial review. I think also that the person sitting in judgment would be ruled ineligible to make a judgment and a decision. I am sure that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State do not wish to put the ombudsman in that position. I do not want to do so either. We oppose the amendment because we think that it is distinctly unhelpful. The Secretary of State occasionally, and the Minister of State perpetually, complain that I do not stick to the letter of the Patten report. I do not think that the letter has to be stuck to, but they do. The Patten report states that the ombudsman should be notified, not consulted. I suggest that that goes far enough, and that we should return to that position. Having explained why we are opposed to Lords amendment No. 93, we run into a slight technical problem. The amendment will not be called to be voted upon for quite some time. This debate and another four debates on other amendments will take place before it is reached. It is now almost 7 o'clock and we have only another three hours because of the timetable motion, to which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House objected. I am in the slightly difficult position of wishing to advise my colleagues to vote against the amendment when they will probably not be able to do so. As a protest, it could be that we shall have to divide the House on Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25, to which we have no particular objections. It seems that that is the only way in which we can express our legitimate concerns by way of a vote. That well illustrates why so many of us voted against the timetable motion. It makes a mockery of debate in this place.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I have a question for the Minister who will respond to the debate. Lords amendment No. 28, relating to consultation, would result in clause 27(2) providing that, before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the board, the Chief Constable and any other parties, as he saw fit. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 28 is an attempt to include the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I support amendment (a), especially in light of the emphasis that has been placed tonight on the importance of human rights development within the Northern Ireland police service. My question is this: in the process of deciding which bodies he considers it appropriate to consult, will the Secretary of State publish any protocol or guidance relating to the matters on which he intends to consult? It would be useful to have some assurances regarding the transparency of the decision-making process relating to consultation arrangements.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has already spoken to the amendment that I intended to address—Lords amendment No. 93. I, too, think that it would be wrong to consult the ombudsman on matters such as plastic bullets, whose use is part of the normal operations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The other place agreed to remove from clauses 24 and 25 the requirement to consult the ombudsman, and it strikes me as right to remove it from clause 51. Such consultation might prejudice any decision the ombudsman had to make and it would make some people highly reluctant to make complaints to her, for fear that she would be biased. The Secretary of State commented on the emblems of the RUC. Apparently, people think that there are two equal communities in Northern Ireland. There are not. There is a majority community that wants to remain part of the United Kingdom and a minority community that wants to break that link. The two communities are not equal. Attempting to please everybody results in the majority tending always to lose out, no matter what its members think, so that the minority is placated. The Secretary of State tells us that he would have been happy to retain the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but he felt unable to do so because the minority would not accept it; therefore, there has to be a new name. He says that he would have no particular objection to retaining the crown, but, again, the minority will not accept it; therefore, the likelihood is that we shall end up with a badge without a crown. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that, by trying to placate a minority, he loses the confidence of the majority of Northern Ireland's people. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or nationalist, were quite happy with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the badge and emblems of that fine force. The Secretary of State should be careful about making changes.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

In his introduction, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offered an honest and intelligent analysis of the problem and stated clearly what we all regard as the central issue on the question of badges. It is not clear to me that every police force requires a badge, especially if it is likely to be a divisive symbol. There was a time when the Labour party had a badge. Giving it up was one of the reforms introduced by the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as part of the new Labour approach. We all seem to have survived its loss. On the issue of the crown and the harp, in principle a balance of symbols is unlikely to be objectionable, but it seems to me—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—that the harp has rarely in the history of Ireland been perceived as a divisive political symbol, whereas the crown has been the subject of controversy, for reasons with which we are all familiar. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) says that the two communities in Northern Ireland are not equal—at least in power. One community is a majority community. He says that we should not try to please everybody, and I do not think that I am over-interpreting his words when I say that he thinks that, if we have to choose, we should choose to please the majority rather than the minority. Such an approach might be appropriate when deciding where to put a motorway, but as a guiding principle for a police force it is profoundly misguided. A police force needs to represent and be seen to represent the common interests of both communities. A supremacist view, placing the interests of one community over those of another, has as little place in the conduct of the police as it would in the conduct of the Army, the judiciary or any other organisation or body that aspires to represent the community as a whole. In common with the overwhelming majority of people, I believe that we have to move beyond that sort of sectarianism. The hon. Member for West Tyrone should bear in mind that militant Unionism constitutes an extremely small minority among the people of the United Kingdom. The interests of the people of the United Kingdom are certainly not served by a policy that promotes division within Northern Ireland.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that an extremist minority of the nationalist minority has consistently used violence, including against the majority on the mainland. That has never been a feature of the Unionist people.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I am not entirely sure that no Unionist has ever been guilty of violence, and even if that were true, it would not necessarily follow that every peaceful view of the nationalist community should be overridden in the interests of the majority. We should seek a solution that is acceptable to both sides, because that is the only plausible basis on which to build a police force. It has been suggested that some officers in the existing RUC would feel uncomfortable in a police force whose badge did not include the crown. It seems to me that an officer to whom the constitutional debate is so crucial that he feels unable to serve because of a badge that does not reflect the traditional sectarian divide, is probably best advised to consider whether he will be well placed in the new police force. We need a police force that is acceptable to both communities, we need officers on that force who are ready to serve both communities, and we need a symbol that reflects that resolve.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It will come as no surprise to hon. Members if I say that I do not believe that the report of the Patten commission should be treated as holy writ. The members of that commission were ordinary human beings—that is a compliment to some of them—and like all human beings, they are fallible. That applies, of course, to the chairman, Mr. Chris Patten. He is equally fallible. One of the mistakes that Patten made was in the treatment of certain symbolic matters, as they are called. From the comments that he made at the time that the report was published, it is clear that he was profoundly confused about political and constitutional issues. The Secretary of State made an important point when he said that he did not want the symbolic issues to be used as a means of reigniting or reopening the constitutional issue. Symbols are important at many levels, one of which is that they are indicators of constitutional issues. The most important point about the Belfast agreement, from the point of view of Unionists, is that if the agreement is accepted and applied, it settles the constitutional issue. If the agreement does not do that, it is of little value. The most important thing, for Unionists, is that the agreement settles constitutional issues, if it is applied. On the constitutional issues, the agreement is clear. It goes beyond an acceptance of a consent principle—it accepts the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom. That is spelled out explicitly in the very first paragraph of the agreement, and the term "legitimacy" is used repeatedly. All those who say that they accept and are committed to the Belfast agreement must, if they are being sincere, also say that they accept that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to have to say that in dealing with the symbolic issues and with the flag and the crown, nationalists are demonstrating that, deep down, they do not accept the agreement. That is what it boils down to. Nationalists have raised the issue of the Union flag and the crown, and in so doing are saying to us, "We do not really accept that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom. We do not really accept one of the fundamental building blocks of the Belfast agreement." It may be that people have not thought the matter through correctly. They may not have fully internalised what the agreement means. The chief value of the agreement, from the point of view of the Unionist community, is that it settles the constitutional issue. If we find that the constitutional issue is reopened by constant challenges to the expressions of that legitimacy, support for the agreement will rapidly unwind. Because I do not want that, I am anxious that we get the issues right and that we stick to the agreement. Where there is a conflict between the agreement and Patten, the agreement overrides. Let us be clear about that. That is relevant, too, to a later group of amendments, in which, to the Government's eternal shame, they are legalising discrimination. The agreement should override that also, but we shall deal with that argument shortly. 7.15 pm When the Secretary of State comes to deal, as he must, with the difficult issues that relate to the flag and the badge, he must bear in mind that the Union flag and the crown are symbols of the constitutional position. The next time that the Secretary of State goes to visit the Chief Constable at RUC headquarters, which I trust he does from time to time, I recommend that he pauses to look at the display cases there, containing memorabilia of police history. Included among that, he will see one panel displaying the badges of the other 66 constabularies in the United Kingdom—all the badges of every police constabulary in Wales, Scotland and England. He will see that on all 66 badges there is a crown. I am sorry to have to tell him that the crown is right at the top on all 66 police badges. If Northern Ireland ends up with the only constabulary in the United Kingdom without a crown at the top of its badge, we clearly have an anomaly, which points out something of considerable significance. It will be so interpreted and so read by many people—not just by those who vote Unionist, but by a much wider range of people. We are dealing with a political ramp, which misunderstands and misinterprets the agreement. There is an absolute imperative on the Secretary of State to sustain the agreement. He should not take the view that whatever is said from the Unionist Benches, Unionist compliance with the provisions can be assumed. We regard the Unionist community as being generally law-abiding and wishing to uphold the law and support the police service, but that was not always the case. That has not always been the case in some localities in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, and historically it has not always been the case. In the 1880s and 1890s, there was a very low level of acceptance of the police force by the populace of Belfast because of the way in which the force had behaved in disturbances in Belfast at that time. Unionist compliance with the measure should not be taken for granted. The present RUC badge is, in fact, the badge of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was developed in the 19th century, which is why it includes the shamrock and the harp. The harp has always been a symbol of Irish nationalism, which is why, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is found on the Irish passport and on Irish Government documents. It has always been a specifically nationalist symbol. Although Unionists have tolerated it in the police service and on Army badges, that has been on the basis that it is accompanied by a crown to balance it. That badge was originally developed in the 19th century as the badge of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Interestingly, in 1922, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary was being formed, the then Unionist Government proposed that there be a new badge, which would have been, one might even say, unambiguously Unionist, as it would have embodied what we call the Northern Ireland flag surmounted with the crown. However, members of the RUC at the time, most of whom had come from the Royal Irish Constabulary, refused to accept the badge. Five thousand new badges had been made and were about to be issued, and the men refused to take them. The Government climbed down, scrapped the new badge, and allowed the old badge to be retained. History sometimes repeats itself. Again, compliance should not be assumed in the present situation. I make the point as a warning. What happened in the past is well known to the people concerned, even if it comes as a surprise to some on the Government Front Bench. Compliance should not be assumed on these matters, and the Government would be well advised to move carefully. Finally, something that the Secretary of State said gravely concerned me and my colleagues. He asked what was the point of coming all this distance and suffering all this pain if we end up losing the prize as a result of symbolic issues. That line of argument will lead him into endless appeasement and will result in him facing endless demands as part of the purely political ramp that does not have a significant resonance within the community at large. The existence of the badge and the name of the Union flag did not deter people after the first ceasefire, when there was a remarkable increase in the number of those from nationalist and Catholic backgrounds applying to join the RUC. A number of people who are not in party politics but who come from that community believe that there will be an increase in recruitment, and the Secretary of State must not be put off by people who are advancing a purely political ramp.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to speak about the badge and the emblems for a moment or two. What the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said is not accepted by the vast majority of Unionists, who do not believe that the agreement brought about the end of the dispute. The Secretary of State said that the dispute over sovereignty was at an end and asked why we should resurrect it by having an argument about the badge. No Unionist in Northern Ireland worth his salt believes that the dispute is at end because after the agreement was made a series of things was added to it. In Stormont, a Sinn Fein Member made the ridiculous suggestion that poppies should not be allowed in the foyer of the Parliament buildings on Remembrance day and should thrown out on the street. He said Sinn Fein Members would see that there would be no poppies in the building next year. All down the line, there has been an attack on those emblems that say that we are a legitimate part of the United Kingdom. What about the Union flag? The Secretary of State thought that he had taken that away as part of the devolved right of the Stormont Administration, and that he had the settling of the issue. Perhaps he thought that things would come right, but to his cost, he has found that they have not. Two Sinn Fein Ministers moved out of their offices as soon as the flag was erected. If Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom, there should be no argument about the flying of the national flag. If the matter is settled, it should be beyond dispute. However, it is not settled, as Sinn Fein and other nationalists are prepared to carry on the battle until they get what they want. They think that if they do so, the majority Ulster population will eventually be forced to agree. I, together with the people whom I represent, do not accept that the Belfast agreement made Northern Ireland legitimate within the United Kingdom and was a final end to the battle. That is not so, as the battle for the Union is raging in this debate. The crown, the harp and the shamrock, for example, are on the badge. As is regularly said in the House, there is a history behind that, which corresponds with that of other police forces in the United Kingdom. Nationalists who accept the agreement say that Unionists have nothing to worry about, as the legitimacy of the union is upheld. Why must the nationalists make such an outcry about the badge? After all, it has the symbol of Ireland on it because, as has been said, southern Ireland claimed the harp. I would like to think that all of us hope to play a harp some day—but perhaps I would be ejected from a republican heaven and not allowed to hold such an instrument.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The hon. Gentleman would be welcomed immediately.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

One thing is certain, and that is that I will not be in purgatory, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry. We are going to have police stations that will never have a union flag up, although I thought that we were a legitimate part of the United Kingdom and that the argument was over. We are going to have police stations that can never have a portrait of the Queen on their walls simply because that would raise the matter again, although I thought that it had been settled. The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he was worried about those matters being raised again, and that we might miss the prize. However, that prize involves taking away from Northern Ireland every symbol, every practice and every flag that is flown, so that there can be development through a sort of condominium into the final united Ireland. That is the target for Sinn Fein-IRA and the republican and nationalist movement. The badge should be left alone, and the arguments should cease. Those who say that the argument about legitimacy is past can prove that they are sincere by leaving the badge alone. The serious problem is that the structures of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be changed. If the Secretary of State had appointed as ombudsman a woman who was the wife of a prominent official Unionist councillor, there would have been riots in the House, as people would want to know how she could possibly be a fair party. Yet the majority population was prepared to accept the appointment of an ombudswoman, a constituent of mine, whose husband is a prominent member of the SDLP, and who was very much engaged in his activities. If I stood up in the House and said anything about that appointment, Members would have roared me down. However, we have to accept that appointment because we are told that is the way that things are going to be. There has been talk in the House about the Human Rights Commission. When it was appointed, I advocated to the then Secretary of State that my party be represented on it, but she told me that we would not have that representation. If Members of Parliament want us to accept a commission, it should represent the opinion of people in the country. However, the Human Rights Commission does not, which is why people have no faith in it. A lot of people on the nationalist and unionist sides do not have faith in it because it was not fairly appointed and does not reflect the opinion of people in Northern Ireland. The matter of recruitment will come up later, although it has been briefly stated that it is all right, as it is in keeping with European law. However, the recruitment matter will not go away simply because people say that it is in keeping with European law. It is not right to set targets for employment on the basis of people's religion.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

As the matter was mentioned by previous speakers, including the Secretary of State, I am entitled to make my brief comment thereon. I was tempted on to the forbidden ground, but I shall now go on to ground that you cannot forbid me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is the issue before us, which goes to the heart of the matter. People in the majority community, who are not always Protestants, will have to be prepared to give consensus to what has been done with regard to the police, but we cannot have their consensus unless the Bill is in a form that they can accept, and they can see that there is no undercurrent running in the direction of bringing about the aim of the republican campaign—a united Ireland.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

This has been an interesting debate. With regard to Lords amendment No. 28, the Secretary of State mentioned the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and I should be grateful if, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he could say more firmly that they will be consulted, rather than may be consulted. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has left the Chamber because I wanted to address myself to some of his remarks and the political ramp that he accused the nationalists of being engaged in with regard to the cap badge and the flag. I am sorry that he has gone, not least because of the hint that he gave of a mutiny in the present RUC if a cap badge that it is not willing to accept is introduced. That was a dangerous thing for a party leader to say. He recalled the history of the 1920s and said that we should remember what happened then. The implications of that statement were stark and clear.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

With all due respect, that is not what my right hon. Friend said. He referred to the new police service, not to the existing RUC, and he said that the members of the new police service may reject the cap badge. They will have representatives in the form of a federation. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is illegitimate for members employed in a police service to reject, through their federation, something that they find unacceptable?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

In no other force would it be acceptable. To question the uniform would be to defy the decision of the Secretary of State. What the right hon. Gentleman said was without the qualifications that we have just heard. He was specific and direct. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and said that the changes in the cap badge and the flag were going against that agreement. He said that they were being pushed too hard; that there was a political ramp, a secret agenda. But annexe A of the Good Friday agreement refers to the Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland and states: Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole. That is the political ramp about which the right hon. Gentleman complained. It is that which he accepted verbally on Good Friday. The Good Friday agreement is the document in which he accepted the change in symbols. It is he who seeks to rewrite the Good Friday agreement.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents the substance of that paragraph. The confidence of the entire community cannot be obtained by placating the minority at the expense of not obtaining the consent and approval of a majority.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but he did not put his name to the document, or accept it on Good Friday; the right hon. Member for Upper Bann did. It states: Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including…ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole. One thing is certain, if the symbols are unacceptable to the minority, there will not be widespread support from the community as a whole. If the symbols are not acceptable to the majority, there will not be widespread support from the community as a whole. But equally certain is why Patten then, despite the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, said that we should have neutral symbols, which do not show an alliance to either the Irish or the British state. That is precisely why that was done. We have seen in the course of this debate how such demands polarise opinion. We have seen that today in the defence and counter claims that have been made across the Floor of the House. We should remember that the Good Friday agreement—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, alone among the Unionists present in the House, gave his assent to it, so I am sure that he will be delighted that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) came rushing to his support—has the support of the majority of the population in Northern Ireland, and of the majority of the Unionist community there. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should cease claiming that he has been sold down the river, or that this is a nationalist ramp. He should accept what he said that he would accept, which is in the Good Friday agreement.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Following the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) makes me conscious of the need to observe self-restraint on a night such as this. I shall not speak tonight of the symbols or the emblems, which the Select Committee, whose report on the RUC was commended by the Minister of State in his wind-up speech on the second group of amendments, saw no reason to change. I spoke on the subject on Second Reading. Repetition by a bystander on such a night as this would be self-indulgent, and I stand by what I said then. I rise in particular to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and his remarks about Lords amendment No. 93—but from a specialist perspective. I should declare an interest, as for the past four and a half years, I have been chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, a post in which I succeeded the noble Lord Barnett. The building societies ombudsman scheme was set up by statute and in that respect is unusual among financial services ombudsman schemes. The Government have chosen to amalgamate the schemes in a single scheme under the Financial Services Authority. I simply report as a matter of fact that all associated with the integration of the various schemes, representing all aspects of the debate, were united in keeping the practical, operational role of the new financial services ombudsman completely separate and distanced from the regulatory role of the Financial Services Authority. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight explains why the same principle should not apply in a policing context.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Symbols, whether cap badges or flags, are rarely important in a state or society where the substance that they represent is sure and certain. However, when the substance—in this case, Northern Ireland's part in the United Kingdom, and the British citizenship of the majority of its citizens—is questioned, symbols such as the badges, the crown and the Union Jack become significant. A threat to them is merely a reflection of the underlying erosion of the identity that they represent. The Secretary of State said that the constitutional issue had been settled. I believe that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) also said that. However, it is far from being settled. It has been settled that the title deeds of Northern Ireland will not pass to the Republic, that the formal transfer of de jure sovereignty to the Republic will not occur until a majority consents to it. However, that does not prevent the Government from establishing institutions whose purpose is to create an actual, economically functional united Ireland, which will ultimately render the legal transfer of sovereignty unnecessary or inevitable. That is consistent with Government policy, as declared in their policy statements. The basic suspicion of the majority that the substance of their constitutional future and their political and national identity is under threat makes them cling—perhaps rather pathetically in some cases—to the symbols that represent the substance that they wish to retain. When those in the mainland United Kingdom dismiss the Unionists and the majority in Northern Ireland as people who prattle on and have endless disputes about flags and symbols, they miss the point. The inhabitants of the mainland are so confident, assured and certain of their political and national identity and its permanence that they can afford to take a laid-back attitude to symbols. They have the substance; why bother about the symbols? Equality of esteem is often discussed in the context of Northern Ireland. For a long time, I found it difficult to understand what was meant by equality of esteem. As a liberal democrat in the widest sense, I believe totally in equality of esteem: in equality of opportunity, of access to education and to the law—all the equalities in a modern democracy. Yet I found that my interpretation was wrong because when nationalist politicians talk about equality of esteem, they mean the equality of the minority with the majority in the right to determine the constitutional and national identity of the state. Debates about symbols are addressed to that basic argument. When we talk about the crown as a symbol, people forget that the crown appears in the courts because the peace that is enforced throughout the United Kingdom is the Queen's peace. One of the fundamental rocks of the development of constitutional government in the United Kingdom—in England—was observance of the ruler: the King's or the Queen's peace, and hence the peace of the Crown. The 67 or 57 constabularies in the United Kingdom use the crown as a symbol because their fundamental function is enforcement of the Queen's peace. 7.45 pm Since the glorious revolution, the monarchy, the House of Commons and, until recently, the House of Lords have become a constitutional trinity. However, when we talk about the Crown and its prerogatives, we mean the enforcement of the Queen's peace. Is Northern Ireland to be different? I do not believe that the Government think that the consent argument has been settled. However, if, for the purposes of argument, we accept the words of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the consent argument has been settled and that Northern Ireland will not be excluded from the United Kingdom until a majority of our citizens say so, we are not only the subjects of the United Kingdom Government, but of the Queen and the Crown. In those circumstances, why has the crown suddenly become anathema for nationalists? That does not apply to the majority of nationalists. Anyone who reads the opening paragraphs of the Patten report will realise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary enjoys a higher rate of public approval than the majority of police forces in other European states and other parts of the world. Why, therefore, is there such opposition to the symbols? It has nothing to do with the impartiality or the integrity of the RUC as a police force, but everything to do with its role in maintaining what is perceived to be a constitutional status quo. If consent exists, and the status quo is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom, why should the symbols of the United Kingdom be cast aside? Between 1918 and 1921, the Royal Irish Constabulary had a Roman Catholic chief constable. Forty per cent. of its officers and 70 per cent. of its constables were Roman Catholic. There was no objection to the RIC's ordinary policing duties. Yet between 1918 and 1921, more than 400 members of that force—more than 70 per cent. of them Catholic—were slaughtered. The RIC was subjected to the same vilification and dangerous propaganda that is now employed against the RUC. It is a case of deja vu. However, on this occasion, a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland retain confidence in the RUC. I believe that that is felt not only in the Unionist community but by a majority of the nationalist community.

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

I rise reluctantly to make two points, which have not been given the prominence that they should receive in the debate. When we speak about the report that Chris Patten compiled, we must bear in mind that it was not a nationalist, Catholic, Irish plot to destabilise Unionism. The Patten commission was chaired by an eminent member of the Conservative party, a former Cabinet Minister in a Conservative Government, now a European Commissioner, who spent untold hours trying to get to the heart of the issues with which he was dealing. It is sometimes forgotten that Chris Patten's recommendations were in effect garnered from his, and his commission's, experience of talking and listening to people in Northern Ireland. I accept that the situation there is unique. If it had not been, there would have been no Patten commission and no Bill. I have a lot of sympathy with some of the points that Unionist representatives and the Unionist community make because the reality is that if Patten is to be adhered to, there is one choice to be made about flags and emblems. The Bill says that the Secretary of State will consult the Policing Board and that, if there is consensus, he will move forward on that basis. However, is it feasible that there will be consensus on the Policing Board on those two issues? I would love to think that there would be cross-community consensus, but, simply, I do not see it. Although the Bill does not say as much, the reality is that, in effect, the Secretary of State will decide whether to implement Patten or not. His decisions could lift those issues on to a different plane or destroy it completely. That is why my party and I were keen for the Bill to contain at least a basic honesty about how those issues would ultimately be dealt with. That basic honesty might—I stress that word—have been able to short-circuit some of the heat that has been engendered. However, I repeat that, ultimately, those issues will be decided not through consensus on the Policing Board, by Parliament or the people in the north of Ireland, but by the Secretary of State. I do not envy him his choice or the position that he will ultimately be in, but it would be much more honest to face up to the situation. Legislation should involve certainty and clarity—especially when it deals with controversial issues, those must be present—but I do not find them in the Bill. When my colleagues on the Unionist Benches and I leave the Chamber, we shall not have certainty or clarity on those issues; nor will my colleagues on these Benches. The same will be true for the people in the north of Ireland and the young people in the nationalist community, who might, for the first time, be thinking about a career in the police service. That is the ultimate strength of the neutral position that the Patten report recommended. I can understand the affection that Unionists feel for the RUC—they would be less than human if they did not have such affection because they have regarded it for so many years as their police service. It is easy to understand that on a human level. I ask, once again, that people understand the position of, in particular, the young in a community that has been divided and has held certain opinions on those issues since the state was formed. Such people—indeed, all of us—are desperately seeking a means by which to introduce changes that will alter policing for ever and establish effective policing for the first time, because policing will be based on consent. That consent should mirror the consent in the Good Friday agreement and in the political process that we are operating. If we and the Unionists had such clarity on those two issues, that would not make them any easier to deal with, but at least the Bill would contain honesty. We have been dealing with it for roughly a year and two months and we should be able to say, "Yes, I know what the Bill says; yes, its implications are clear; yes, it has the clarity that such legislation should contain." I hope that all of us understand people's human and emotional attitudes. If we are to move on from debates such as this and into the future, we should, when we draw up legislation, at least be honest enough to say at the end of the process that it contains sufficient clarity and that we know what it means.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I shall be brief. I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) rightly said that humanity and human emotions have a big part to play in the debate. My cousin, Samuel Donaldson, was the first police officer to be blown up by the IRA in the violence of the past 30 years. Ironically, he was murdered in South Armagh, in the constituency that the hon. Gentleman represents. My cousin died serving the whole community and responding to a call to protect the community of South Armagh from the violence of extremist republican terrorists. The religion or politics of the individuals whom he served did not matter to him. I reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion that we in the Unionist community regard the RUC as our police service. He has only to look at the annual events at Drumcree to understand that the RUC is not a Unionist police service—it is placed in the middle. He should examine the events of the past 30 years and ask who put all those loyalist terrorists behind bars to protect the nationalist community, if not the RUC. Who imprisoned Michael Stone and Johnny Adair, if not the RUC? Did it not do that to protect the whole community, including those from the nationalist tradition? The hon. Gentleman was unfair to the RUC when he suggested that it was the preserve of one tradition or community. That is not the case—I regard it not in that way, but as the upholder of law and order. The hon. Gentleman touched on another important point. Implicit in his remarks was the suggestion that if nationalists do not win the debate about symbols, that will have serious consequences for his, his party's and the nationalist leadership's ability to endorse the new police service. That is a serious matter because it amounts to a threat. We in the Unionist community are being asked to accept things that we find extremely difficult. We are being asked to swallow them all. We are being asked to accept this new police service, with all the problems that it places on us as Unionists. The hon. Gentleman, however, is saying that unless he gets his way he cannot support the new police service, and I think that that goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be influenced by approaches of that kind in reaching key decisions on symbols. 8 pm The hon. Gentleman talks of neutrality, but Northern Ireland is not a neutral place. It is part of the United Kingdom, and the symbols associated with the United Kingdom cannot, in that sense, be regarded as somehow to be set aside. What we are looking for—and what the hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for—is a compromise, but nothing in what I heard the hon. Gentleman say suggests that he is willing to compromise. Indeed, his conclusion that the police board will not be able to reach a compromise, and that it will be down to the Secretary of State, implies that he himself is not prepared to compromise with Unionists on the issue of symbols. The Secretary of State must have regard to that. I hope that he will not allow himself to be cajoled in this manner, and that he will reflect on what Unionists have said about the importance of symbols. I accept that symbols are important to the nationalist community as well, but I think it sad that, after all we have been asked to accept, and at the end of all the compromises that have been made by the Government to accommodate and facilitate the hon. Gentleman and his party, the SDLP seems not to be prepared to endorse the new police service and join the new Policing Board. If that is indeed so, many in the Unionist community will probably ask what it was all about in the first place. We need an answer to that question. I do not believe that, at the end of all this, the hon. Gentleman has the luxury of opting out of support for the forces of law and order—just as I do not have that luxury, because in the end I shall have to make the judgment. Let me say here and now—I give my commitment to the House—that I will support the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will reflect on their position, and will give a firm commitment to support the forces of law and order in upholding the law in Northern Ireland. That is crucial. Were they to opt out, it would have serious consequences for the whole political process.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

This has been a fascinating, slightly sombre and rather odd debate, in some ways. It is extraordinary that we should be having a debate of this importance on what was effectively a minor amendment in the House of Lords, and I think it reflects badly on the House of Commons that an issue of such importance should have been left until this stage before being heard. On Lords amendment No. 94, I hope that the Opposition's stance was made clear by my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State. We believe that there are compelling reasons why the crown and cap badge of a police officer anywhere in the United Kingdom are merely a straightforward reflection of the job that he carries out. The Secretary of State has taken upon himself the extremely difficult task of balancing conflicting views. It is in the Bill that it is his decision, and in the amendment he is widening the scope of his consultation. We have no reason to do other than welcome that. It is dispiriting to hear the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) seem to suggest an unwillingness to accept the decision that the Secretary of State might eventually make if it is not acceptable to him. I hope that the Secretary of State will disregard that. I also hope the Secretary of State will assure us that he is not treating this evening's inadequate debate as consultation with the House, if he is minded to carry it out. I must tell him that stimulating this debate on a very minor amendment to the procedure that he intends to adopt constitutes a funny way of going about things, which certainly does not commend itself to us. It gives us no opportunity to vote—if a vote is indeed what is desired—because on the face of it the amendment is innocuous and straightforward, and adds to the Secretary of State's scope for consultation. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will assure us that he did not intend to do that. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that he is nodding.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I was not nodding. I am afraid that I said, from a sedentary position, that I had not the foggiest idea what the hon. Gentleman was talking about.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

All I can say is that the Secretary of State's concentration, which is normally so acute, must have been wandering. He has proposed an amendment widening the scope of the consultation that he intends to carry out before deciding on the symbols for the cap badge of the Northern Ireland police service.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The amendment was tabled in the House of Lords.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It was, but I understand that the Secretary of State has accepted it, or intends to accept it, and, according to my understanding, he thus commends it to the House of Commons. If that is the case, I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that we consider it very sensible. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State listen for a moment? We have no reason for complaint, except in so far as the Secretary of State may assume that this evening's short debate on the amendment constitutes his consultation with the House of Commons. I hope he will tell us that that is not the case, because, when there is no possibility that the House can vote, it is not a sensible way of proceeding—especially in view of the strong feelings generated by the issue. That is for the Secretary of State to respond to; but it is disingenuous of him to suggest that no issue arises. Let me now deal with another matter on which we commented earlier. I refer to the role of the ombudsman, the issue on which we wish to concentrate in the context of the amendments. When Standing Committee B considered the Bill, there were some exchanges of views. In particular, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) wanted the Government to adopt a system whereby the board would have a final say on the guidelines. At that stage, the Under-Secretary indicated, very properly in my view, that he fully appreciated that on an issue of such importance the buck stopped with Ministers. There was quite an interesting debate. The views of the Under-Secretary can be seen in column 368 of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings for 29 June 2000. In the circumstances to which I have referred, we find the ombudsman's role a cause of anxiety. Ombudsmen fulfil a quasi-judicial role. I do not see how it is possible to consult the ombudsman on the guidelines and how then—if a complaint is made about the operation of those guidelines—the ombudsman's subsequent criticisms will not be tainted by any comment that has been made previously. We have a good system in this country: one does not go off to the judiciary to seek answers to hypothetical questions. I strongly recommend that the Secretary of State drop the idea of the ombudsman's having such a consultative role in drawing up guidelines. It is the ombudsman's role to receive complaints, and it does no service to the ombudsman—I hope that the Secretary of State will register this—if she is involved in the preliminary process.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

rose—

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

No, I will not give way; I want to finish my speech. I simply ask the Secretary of State to note what I have said. We are trying to be constructive, and we do not think that the ombudsman should have a role in this matter.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

In contrast to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I take an entirely different view of the debate. I think that it has been well reasoned, considered, well informed, passionate and honest. It reflects extremely well on the House that Members should have contributed and exchanged views in a well-mannered way, given the strong passions that are stimulated and evoked by such matters in Northern Ireland. I gently say to the House—it might be entirely futile to do so—that we are on the fourth group of amendments. We have another nine to go before we terminate proceedings at 10 o'clock. I point out gently and respectfully that there are matters of importance for later debate, before we reach the closure at 10 o'clock.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

No, I will not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) asked whether guidance would be issued on codes of practice. I have no intention of publishing protocols, or guidance on the arrangements for issuing codes. With respect, that would be surplus to bureaucratic requirements. The production of codes is a matter of common sense, but the codes themselves, which are the most important matters for us to consider, are likely to be made public in all instances. Obviously, they can be revised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about the role of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. The codes that we will issue are likely to concentrate on the interrelationship between the three public authorities: the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board, which make up the tripartite structure for the new policing service. That does not seem an obvious area where the European convention on human rights would be directly engaged. For example, the only existing code concerns financial arrangements and detailed delegations, so there is no obvious need to consult the Human Rights Commission. Having said that, I give him the undertaking that wherever it is appropriate or relevant to do so I will voluntarily, whatever the legislation says, consult both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. Two main subjects dominated our debate. One concerned symbols, insignia, emblems and badges; the other concerned the ombudsman. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who I think did not have the benefit of hearing my remarks earlier in the debate, as a result of an enforced absence from the Chamber, would have heard me set out in some detail the approach that I intend to take in consulting the Policing Board and in finally reaching a position on the vexed question of the badge and insignia for the new police service. I will not, if he does not mind, rehearse all that I said. If he were to do me the courtesy and justice of reading my remarks tomorrow, he would find that they stand scrutiny. 8.15 pm It is not fair to condemn the legislation, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to do, because it did not provide complete certainty on every issue. One of the points of such legislation is to provide, among other things, the framework within which decisions are subsequently taken. I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to provide the basis for consulting the Policing Board—the local representative board, which should be drawn from the community as a whole—on its views on what the emblem and badge should be. Although I appreciate that it is irritating at the least to have continued uncertainty on the matter, that uncertainty need not and should not continue for long. If it is possible, as I hope it will be, to constitute the Policing Board in shadow form by mid-January or, at the latest, the end of January, it will be possible in early February to consult the board, to invite it to arrive at a genuinely cross-community consensus on the issue and to resolve the question of the badge well ahead of our advertising for recruits to the new police service, which will not happen until April next year. Therefore, young Catholics and young nationalists who are thinking about their career prospects and possible recruitment to the police service of Northern Ireland will know and have all those matters and every other matter properly clarified for them—all the pieces of the jigsaw will be in place—by April, which is the point at which we will invite people to consider joining the police service. I shall deal with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), neither of whom are still with us, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who, as ever, is still with us. May I say first, however, that, of all the contributions I probably most enjoyed that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). He offered an inspiring and visionary contribution when he drew the parallel between the new beginning in policing and the new beginning of the Labour party some years ago. I am not sure whether my commending to the Policing Board the introduction of the red rose as the new emblem for the police service would command universal support. It might challenge even my powers of persuasion, but we will see. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann says that the sensitivity to symbols does not have any significant resonance in the community at large. I do not think that that is true either for his side of the community or for the nationalist side of it. On the contrary, those matters have huge resonance, which is why they are capable of stimulating such controversy. I follow the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Good Friday agreement and the principle of consent. All I say to him is that it is not me whom he needs to persuade in the first instance. It is nationalists—nationalist members of the new Policing Board—whom Unionist members of the board must seek to persuade and to bring round to their view. However, whatever the outcome of that discussion in the Policing Board, my view is clear: that outcome must be based on genuine cross-community consensus. Nothing that falls short of that will do. We cannot resolve those matters on any other basis. Of course, I do not want to do anything that would jeopardise the Good Friday agreement. Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's logic and his position that we want to sustain the agreement in every respect, but we also want to ensure a proper and successful new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Both are important and not mutually exclusive goals. I turn to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the ombudsman. They are in danger of making far too much of the issue. I do not think that it quite merits the language that they used. As a general proposition, I agree that the role and responsibility of the ombudsman is to deal not with general policing policies but with individual complaints about policing. However, nothing can stop the ombudsman offering her views on matters such as the police use of baton rounds, and she can make her comments in public. She is an entirely independent person, with strong views, and she can say what she likes on such matters. Listing her as a consultee merely recognises the reality and puts this within a formal and appropriate framework and setting. To be perfectly honest, I would rather consult her as a formal consultee than as a public referee, because as a consultee she would be offering her views to me in private.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have enough on my plate without resolving the self-evident contradictions of the Conservative party's position on the amendment. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made a contribution that I believe a lot of people will have thought seriously about. I appreciate the sincerity with which he spoke. He criticises Labour Members and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for objectionable talk about boycotts, but I remind him that the leader of his party talked earlier about a possible refusal to comply-so one person's boycott is another person's refusal to comply. We could do with less talk of that sort from both sides of the House. The Bill, like the Good Friday agreement, is not and will not be perfect from anybody's point of view. Nobody will be entirely happy with what has been agreed when the legislation leaves this House. However, the Bill, like the Good Friday agreement, is based on the principles of consent and equality. Ultimately, it is shaped by what is workable in the real world. The next test of workability will be in the shadow Policing Board, when it is constituted in the early part of next year.

THE BOARDS POLICING PLAN

ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 56.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

This large group of amendments makes fundamental changes to the efficiency or best value provisions in part V of the Bill. The changes give the board primacy for securing continuous improvement in the way in which board and police functions are exercised with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy. They give the board the lead in reviewing board and police functions. In respect of the police, the board is obliged to involve the Chief Constable in its deliberations. The amendments confine the Secretary of State's role to one of default-exercisable only on receipt of an adverse report from the Comptroller and Auditor—General or Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. These provisions were debated thoroughly and constructively in the other place and the Government believe that they now strike the right balance. We are grateful for the wide range of positive contributions made in the other place, which undoubtedly aided the Government to meet their commitment—made in this House—to place the board at the heart of the efficiency measures. I commend the amendments to the House.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 88 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 92 and 106.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

This group of amendments deals predominantly with the code of ethics: they reinforce the code. Amendment No. 57 strengthens the requirements for police officers to adhere to the code of ethics. Not unreasonably, it changes "have regard to" to "be guided by". Amendment No. 90 requires the board to review the steps taken by the Chief Constable to ensure that the code of ethics is brought to the attention of officers. Amendment No. 91 adjusts the wording of clause 50 to require the Secretary of State to reflect the code of ethics in discipline regulations so far as is practicable. Amendment No. 88 makes two changes. The first is to meet more closely the recommendation in Patten that the code should integrate the European convention on human rights in police practice; paragraph 4.8 of the Patten report refers to that. The second change was made in response to concerns that, in drawing up the code of ethics, the Chief Constable and the board should have regard to the wording of the new declaration attested by constables under clause 38. Amendment No. 89 makes the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland a consultee on the code of ethics. Amendment No. 92 is technical; it refers to conduct and discipline—not pensions, as suggested by the previous wording. Amendment No. 106 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle of impartiality in carrying out his general duties under clause 66. That fulfils a commitment made in Committee in this place. I commend the amendments to the House. Amendment (a) proposed by my hon. Friends would require that the code of ethics be used to make police officers aware of the contents of specified international instruments set out in the amendment. The current form of clause 50(1) makes the purpose of the code of ethics in relation to human rights as close as possible to Patten's recommendation 4. Amendment (a) would move the Bill away from Patten's recommendations. As we have said, the problem with international human rights standards is lack of clarity, even with the documents mentioned. For example, the United Nations code of conduct for law enforcement officials refers to many other international instruments. I understand that none of the three instruments referred to has been formally ratified by the United Kingdom, or is legally binding in international law in the same way as a treaty would be. The documents constitute aspirational statements. If particular, specific measures in those or other instruments would add value to the code of ethics. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, no doubt, comment on them when it is consulted on the code of ethics. In view of that information, I ask my hon. Friends not to press amendment (a) to a Division.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Let me put at ease the minds and stomachs of colleagues in the House and outside. My colleagues and I have no intention of forcing a Division on my amendment. That, however, does not take away from the seriousness with which we regard it. Certain phrases in the Human Rights Commission report that I quoted at length earlier stand out. They include: The tutor's knowledge about human rights appeared to be weak. That was in paragraph 22. Paragraph 25 said: The training appeared to be done in a vacuum. Paragraph 31 said: The Commission found little evidence of training in international standards other than those in the ECHR or of benchmarking of progress through the training to that date. The European convention on human rights is in many ways aspirational, as I am sure that the Minister would agree. All law that we pass is aspirational; if it were not so, our prisons would not be full.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

May I raise a minor point? My hon. Friend might think it trivial, in which case I apologise. Do not the RUC officers serving with the United Nations international police force in Kosovo have to adhere to the UN code of conduct for law enforcement officials and the UN basic principles on the use of force and firearms?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

That is probably right. It is not a point that I have considered. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention and that of the Minister to that point. No doubt the Minister will get a letter from the Box shortly saying who was right.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Or wrong.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Or wrong, or both. Factually wrong, but morally right, or vice versa—I am not certain. Patten said that we should also look to the European convention, which was drawn from the international convention. The Council of Europe has made its own declaration on the police. In fact, it is being revised by the Council of Ministers at the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is working closely on the matter. The European declaration on the police was originally the work of the rapporteur of the Council of Europe, a member of the British Labour delegation in the 1970s, Mr. Watkinson. So there is a lot of basis for the code of ethics. The main point is that we do not have to see the European conventions in isolation from all other international standards, particularly United Nations standards. People and policemen must be aware in their training that there is a broad idea of the natural law of justice in relation to policing that spreads beyond Europe and encompasses the whole world. Many nations in the world are prepared to accept it both for its morality and for the standards that it sets for good policing. I hope that when we have a revision—as we are bound to, after this report—of the contents of the curriculum and the teaching methods, the board will look outside what we have had so far, and outside the European convention, and realise that there is a world where a lot of people adopt policies some of which are at a higher level than those in the European convention, and that we should be aware of them and see how they operate.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for his support on the amendments, some of which were inspired by a debate that we had in Committee and elsewhere. I echo the praise that he voiced of the work of the Equality Commission. Last night, I met the chairman and other people associated with the commission. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the work that they are doing is very useful and gives us hope for the future that the important issue of equality, which is central to the Good Friday agreement, is receiving proper attention. No doubt when the occasion arises for the commission to be consulted, it will have something to say. I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said that he does not intend to press his amendment to a Division. I assure him that, despite the concerns that he has voiced tonight and repeated in this debate, the Human Rights Commission will, quite properly, not be backward in coming forward when it comes to being consulted on the cede of ethics. I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with some of the commissioners, and with Brice Dickson, the chief commissioner. It is clear that they are not people who would stand blushing on the sidelines; they ensure that when they are consulted, they have their say. I am sure that if they have any concerns, they will let us know about them. I believe that my hon. Friend discussed the role of the RUC in Kosovo and whether it is caught by international human rights standards. We do not believe that those standards apply, but that is a very provisional view. As my hon. Friend correctly predicted, although I say no, there may well be a yes to follow, and if I am incorrect in giving him those assurances, I shall write to him. I hope that my assurances will reassure my hon. Friend. I confirm that there will be provision in the future code of ethics to allow any alteration or change if it proves necessary.

RECRUITMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 62, 64, 65, 67 and 138.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall first discuss amendment No. 59, which deals with lay involvement in the recruitment process, and amendment No. 138. Amendment No. 59 obliges the Secretary of State to ensure, in recruitment regulations, that sensitive information is protected appropriately. Amendment No. 138 allows references to "the Board" in the recruitment provisions to be construed as reference to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland before the board replaces the authority. This is to enable the recruitment regulations to be progressed before the board is appointed. Amendment No. 61 places a ceiling of 75 per cent. on the level to which the Secretary of State is permitted to aggregate the 50:50 quota. The issue generated much discussion in Committee in the House and in the other place, so it might be worthwhile taking time to explain why we have arrived at our conclusion. The Bill allows for the 50:50 recruitment quota for police trainees to be adjusted for the purposes of recruiting police trainees in two sets of circumstances. First, a "set aside order" may be made when there is an insufficient number of candidates from either community background to fill the number of required posts—in effect, that means setting aside the 50:50 provision. Secondly, an "aggregation order" may be made when at least one such set aside order has been made in the previous three years—its purpose being to redress, or partly redress, any imbalance that has arisen as a result. Ulster Unionists and Liberal Democrats pointed out to us that, in the absence of any safeguard, the Secretary of State could, in theory, adjust the quota under an aggregation order to permit 100 per cent. recruitment from members of either community background group—Catholic or non-Catholic. The amendment accordingly sets a limit of 75 per cent. on the aggregation power, thus ensuring that a minimum of 25 per cent. from either community background group are appointed. Amendment No. 62 is consequential on that. I come to the amendments that will add new clauses to the Bill. Amendment No. 60 is designed to meet recommendations 127 and 128 of the Patten report that police officers serving outside the RUC should be encouraged to apply for the ranks above constable. The report particularly said that Catholic officers from Northern Ireland serving in police services elsewhere—especially those in more senior ranks—should be contacted and encouraged to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police. So-called lateral entry to the RUC from other United Kingdom forces already takes place to a limited degree. Our aim is to enhance the use of such channels at all levels in the police service, including from the Garda Siochana.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have recently met two senior officers in the RUC who were recruited from police forces in mainland Britain. Would it be possible for an officer in, for example, Strathclyde, to be seconded to the RUC for three or four years?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not know the detailed provisions for that. However, the answer is probably yes if there is agreement between the forces. For example, a police officer with particular expertise or knowledge of the investigation of fraud could be called in to meet a deficiency in a police service. A police officer from Strathclyde, from any other force in Great Britain or from the Garda Siochana could be seconded for his expertise in certain circumstances. I am sure that such interrelationships already exist. However, transfers on secondment may cause difficulties if the officers have to attest by means of different oaths. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I shall write to him if my explanation is not correct. I was describing how so-called lateral entry, including from the Garda Siochana, could take place. Such lateral entry will be based on selection and open competition. The fundamental principles of merit will be applied as Patten recommended. Amendment No. 65 is consequential on amendment No. 60. It makes the lateral entry provision temporary, subject to our triennial review and renewal. Amendment No. 67 was tabled in response to an undertaking given in Standing Committee to consider female representation in the police. The RUC suffers a marked imbalance in terms of both community background and gender. Only 12.6 per cent. of police officers are women, a third of whom are in the part-time reserve. 9.15 pm The provision enables the Policing Board to monitor the representation of women in the police, the police support staff and the board itself, and to devise measures to increase their representation if necessary. The board may invite the Chief Constable to draft the plan, which can be accepted or amended by the board. Consultation is required with the Equality Commission, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State before the plan is made or revised. However, publication of the plan will be a matter for the board. Amendment No. 64 is simply a drafting amendment to that process. I commend the amendments to the House.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As the Minister said, we have debated this issue before and there are some very strong views on it, as I am sure all hon. Members will be aware. Indeed, the amendments raise matters of principles such as the merit principle which the Minister referred to as fundamental. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not here. Perhaps he will be able to join us when he has had dinner.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

My hon. Friend is telephoning his wife and will be back shortly.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am glad for that reassurance. No doubt the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) can convey my comments to the hon. Gentleman. 1 have listened to contributions by the hon. Member for Hull, North and his colleagues in which they talked about human rights. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern that human rights be upheld. Indeed, the amendments that he has tabled reflect his anxiety that human rights issues are raised and given more attention in the Bill. Human rights are never more important than when they are about to be abused, and we now have a chance to apply an acid test to those concerns about human rights. I hear a great deal about human rights from many hon. Members and from many people here and in Northern Ireland. Let those hon. Members stand up for human rights tonight. We intend to divide the House on amendment No. 61. It relates to some of the provisions on quotas in clause 45. The clause heading—"Discrimination in appointments"—is refreshingly honest: the clause provides for discrimination in recruitment, and it is clear and open about that. The Government are deliberately setting aside human rights to discriminate. Although they talk about the importance of human rights and putting them at the heart of the process, they have started off by corrupting the process because they have deliberately decided to discriminate. Furthermore, the proposals are quite unnecessary. The Government have discovered that they have problems. That is why amendment No. 61 was tabled in the other place. They realised that they were getting into a situation that would produce not only absurdities but indefensible positions. The Government have realised that their proposals are not practicable and will give rise to difficulty, but the proposals are unnecessary because the target population for recruitment is roughly 50:50 in Northern Ireland between Protestant and Catholic. There is a slight Catholic majority in some ages but not in others. If there are equal levels of participation in both communities there will be roughly 50:50 recruitment. Equal participation depends upon the attitude taken by individuals who apply. We have every reason to believe that now that, as we hope, a major terrorist campaign is a thing of the past—although violence has not completely ended—there will be a significant increase in the number of Catholic applicants. We shall have to see whether the proportion moves immediately to 50 per cent. Given the nature of things, it might not do so in the first year or two. However, we could be surprised. The attitude taken by leaders of the Catholic Church and by community and political leaders will be significant. If political and community leaders encourage people to join, we shall rapidly reach a 50:50 position. It would be proper in the present circumstances to have various forms of what is called affirmative action to encourage people to apply. Members are familiar with the concept of affirmative action and are aware of the range of things that can be done in those terms. It is unnecessary to provide for a legal quota, and by doing so the Government will discriminate. They may try to console themselves with the thought that in the first few years they may discriminate against only a handful of people—perhaps only a dozen or a score will be discriminated against. They will meet the merit or quality requirement and be put into a recruitment booth, but will not get a job. Other persons who come along after them will get jobs ahead of them. Each of those persons who are so discriminated against will be entitled to have their human rights respected. The Government are deliberately legislating to violate those rights. That is not the way to proceed. The Government's approach will sour the atmosphere from the outset, and in the long run it will not work. Given the amendments that the Government have tabled, I think that they know that. They realise that when discrimination occurs and complaints are pursued, their position will not be sustainable. I think that the Government will be unable to operate the system for more than a few years before their own absurdity and injustice catches up with them. However, think of the unnecessary damage that will be done during those years. We have pursued the matter in this place and in another place. We were glad to have the support of the Liberal Democrats in Committee when we tabled amendments and new clauses to provide for targets and affirmative action. That would have been a sensible way in which to proceed. I regret that the Liberal Democrats did not lend their support in another place. Had they done so, the amendments would have been carried and we would have a different set of Lords amendments, which we would have been pleased to support. We can only guess what the Secretary of State's smile indicates in terms of whatever was done—given the way in which the House operates—and what was done with the Liberal Democrats so as to induce them to do a U-turn as these matters proceeded to another place. When we vote later this evening, it will be interesting to see whether Liberal Democrat Members do what they did in Committee or adopt the U-turn that was taken by their colleagues in another place. I refer to those matters in light terms, but there is still a serious issue. A significant number of people in Northern Ireland have a rather cynical attitude towards the use of the term "human rights". I believe in human rights—despite the sour comments that I have heard from members of other parties—and I am anxious to ensure that people's rights are upheld. That is why I find the provisions so disappointing. Although they are unnecessary, they are being forced through in the knowledge that they will injure people's rights. The Government have gone to the length of persuading the European Council of Ministers to produce a derogation from the equal rights directive. That might be the end of matters in Europe, or it might not—I suspect the latter, as issues remain that can be pursued there. There is also the question of the European convention on human rights. No doubt, cases will be brought based on the convention, allowing us to discover whether the certificate in the Bill is accurate. I suspect that several cases relating to the provisions will get to court. The provisions do the Government, the Bill and, consequently, the police force great damage, unnecessarily. There is still time for the Government to think again and realise that all that is necessary is that encouragement is given: the Government and community and religious leaders only have to encourage people to come forward, because the irony, as I have said before, is that the target age group for recruitment is roughly evenly balanced. That is the right way. Legally coercive methods are the wrong way, and run quite contrary to the agreement into which we entered. This evening, I have reflected on the fact that some parties that say they support the agreement set it to one side when it suits them to do so. I am afraid that that is happening again now.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Ministers know, when this matter was debated in Standing Committee, I, on behalf of the official Opposition, expressed serious reservations about the entirety of the provisions of clause 45. Whatever is done in respect of the European Union and its directives, I wholly share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the clause is in breach of the European convention on human rights. It is in that light that one must see Lords amendment No. 61, which is apparently the device whereby a degree of approval was secured in the upper House for allowing the Bill to pass containing clause 45 in its present form. However, it seems to me that the amendment makes matters worse, because it emphasises the fact that there will be occasions on which up to 75 per cent. of the recruitment pool have to face a discriminatory bias. I do not understand how the provision will achieve the goals that the Government desire. From the comments I made in Committee, the Minister of State knows that the Opposition share the Government's desire for a massive increase in the number of members joining the police service in Northern Ireland who are drawn from the minority Roman Catholic community. If that means that the day comes when Roman Catholics comprise more than 50 per cent. of the Northern Ireland police service, as it will be called, we shall not lose one second of sleep. Indeed, taking into account matters of demography and employment, that scenario may well come to pass. I am sure that it is likely that Roman Catholics are more heavily represented in the Metropolitan police in London than their numerical strength in the general population might appear to dictate. We shall not worry about that. However, positive discrimination is discrimination, and the effect of Lords amendment No. 61 on clause 45 is to institutionalise even further the discrimination that is clear in the clause as it stands. The amendment may be ingenious in terms of persuading Liberal Democrat peers in another place to support the insupportable, but we cannot support it. We agree entirely with the view of the Ulster Unionists that this is a proper matter on which to divide the House.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on amendment No. 67. The promise was made that careful examination would be carried out concerning the role of women in the police, the police support staff and the board's staff. No one can criticise subsection (4), which states: Before making or revising its action plan, the Board shall consult— (a) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; (b) the Chief Constable; and (c) the Secretary of State. Certain police functions are better carried out by women police officers than by male police officers. That provision is a useful improvement to the Bill. I am sure that the board and the Chief Constable will deal humanely with the problem of under-representation, if there is one. I refer to recommendation 154 of the Patten commission, and ask a question that my right hon. Friend may consider to be of minor importance. When a recruitment programme is finally under way for new recruits, and to bring in experienced officers from other police forces, will they be able to wear the new uniform suggested in recommendation 154? That recommendation refers to paragraph 17.7 of the Patten report, which states that we have been persuaded by the Police Federation and individual officers who commented on the present uniform that it is somewhat outdated and we recommend that a new, more practical style of uniform be provided to police officers. I have often thought that about RUC uniforms. How far has that recommendation been carried out? Is there a new uniform—I almost said, "on the stocks" to my right hon. Friend. How close are we to a new, more sensible, more appropriate uniform? My right hon. Friend knows that I disagree with one part of the recommendation—that the colour of the new police uniform should remain the same as the present uniform. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke about the display cabinets at the headquarters of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I, too, have looked at them a couple of times, and I concur with what he said about the badges worn by members of the other 66 police forces in the United Kingdom. They have a common colour uniform, I believe. Eventually, the new police force in Northern Ireland should wear the identical colour uniform. I should like to know about the design of the new uniform, and how far matters have progressed.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Oh no, please don't.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman may be rather delicately situated. However, does he agree with the principle that there is no difference between discrimination against 100 per cent. of the population and discrimination against 75 per cent? Is that not equally bad? I remember the hon. Gentleman's compelling words in Committee against that course of action, so how can he justify the change when the principle has not been touched at all?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman is an evolutionary Liberal Democrat.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

This matter goes to the heart of the policing issue. Many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have drawn attention to the discrimination which will clearly result from the Bill. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that 11 per cent. of the ethnic community would not be represented. It is interesting to note that anyone who is not a Roman Catholic or a Protestant is taken as a Protestant. That is one reason why the numbers and percentages are skewed in one direction. But there is a genuine concern that over the years, there has been a propaganda exercise against the RUC because of its make-up. One must ask why we have the present percentage from the Protestant community within the RUC and the RUC reserves. The reality is that SDLP Members opposed the Royal Ulster Constabulary and did not want members of their party or people associated with it to join the organisation, against which they carried out a policy of vilification for many years. Ordinary Roman Catholics therefore found that they had no political back-up. The Church joined the political representatives and opposed individuals' membership of the organisation. 9.45 pm In the community in which I live, many members of the Roman Catholic community served in the RUC with excellence, determination and courage. They faced not only opposition from their political and Church representatives, but the prospect of being attacked and murdered by the IRA. I ask hon. Members to consider the number of members of the Roman Catholic community who have been murdered by the IRA. We must identify clearly the reason why the proper percentage of people from the Roman Catholic community did not join the RUC. If members of the SDLP decide to sit on the sidelines because they believe that they have not got enough and can push for a few more concessions from the present Administration, they will certainly oppose members of the nationalist community joining the new service that is being commissioned. There is nothing new under the sun. They told us that the B Specials were the problem, so we got rid of them. They told us that the Ulster Defence Regiment was the problem, so we got rid of them. They move from one thing to another. Of course, the RUC is now the problem, so we move on again. The interesting question is whether members of the SDLP will directly encourage members of the Roman Catholic community to join the police force. Furthermore, will Church leaders do so, and will the SDLP's hench-party, Sinn Fein-IRA, also allow such people to join? No one wanted the establishment of a police force that represented only one section of the Northern Ireland community. We had sought to encourage the Roman Catholic community to cast aside its political representatives and join the RUC and had hoped that that would happen because we believed that they had a vital contribution to make to the protection of ordinary, law-abiding people throughout the Northern Ireland community. The basic human right of employment will now, however, be taken from the Protestant community. Interestingly, we are being told in the House that members of the Garda should join up and take over the RUC offices. In other words, people living in the United Kingdom are to be put out of their jobs and on to the unemployment lists, and people from a foreign country are to be put in their positions. Will that policy carry easily in the community? Will it establish a community relationship and unite a divided community? Hon. Members know that that will not be the outcome. Positive discrimination is at the heart of the proposals. It is institutionalised discrimination against a community that has stood against IRA terrorism, as well as all the other terrorism that has been fired at it. The basic human right to be employed on merit, not according to religious name or tag, should be established clearly, once and for all. That is why I feel that the suggestions under consideration will sit well neither with the basic human rights of the people of the United Kingdom nor with the population about which I am talking. I refer especially to those who have served well and diligently and have withstood the onslaught of terrorism to achieve peace and stability in the Province.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

As ever, the matter under discussion has generated a hot debate. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a strong speech and has held consistently to his view. In one sense, however, he did not take account of the breadth of the debate. That also applies to the contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The House does not necessarily need to accept the view of a Minister or of those who spoke in support of the Government amendments that were introduced in another placeit should listen to —the views of the Equality Commission. On the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about using targets and affirmative action to deal with the issue rather than our approach, the Equality Commission said: It is the Commission's view that goals and timetables and affirmative action measures which are currently lawful under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are unlikely to produce the necessary change in the composition of the police for a considerable period … the Commission believes that the creation of a police service which is representative of the community is essential both to the effectiveness of the police service and to the establishment of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I recollect our debate on Report. One of the strongest arguments against the Government's approach was that it would place us in a situation that was incompatible with EU employment directives. That argument has not been mentioned this evening. We said at the time that it was not and is not incompatible, although there was a possibility that it might be, but that we should seek an exemption, which we have achieved. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen would recognise that—

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

In a moment. I was making the point that those hon. Gentlemen who previously rested so much of their argument on that suggestion—[Interruption.] We could all go back to the record.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect our discussion in Committee on that matter? I always took the view that the potential breach of the European convention was the central issue. The need to obtain a derogation from EU directives shows how sloppy the EU is if it has to enforce its own human rights legislation. However, I leave that to one side because it was never the central platform of my arguments, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not enter into a debate on Europe at this stage of the evening.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister makes a point against himself. The fact that the Government had to get a derogation from the directive shows that the arguments that we made about the directive before there was a derogation were sound.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

No, it does not. [Interruption.] I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not. Our argument has been consistent all along. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. …pik) discussed the Government's commitment to and view of positive discrimination. We said, and we have always recognised, that these are exceptional measures. Patten recognised that, as did the Equality Commission. We are dealing with a situation that everyone recognises is wrong, no matter how it arose. We can all analyse the background, but only 8 per cent. of the RUC's strength comes from the Catholic community, and something needed to be done. We set out to examine the way forward in a practical and mechanistic way, as the Patten report proposed. Certain weaknesses in that approach were raised by Ulster Unionists and by Liberal Democrats, and we took that into account. We modified our position, but did not move away from the central thrust of what Patten was asking us to do, and which we accepted had to be done. We have never hidden from the fact that positive discrimination is involved—we accept that, but we also point out that the situation is exceptional. I inform the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I, too, can become passionate about the matter. Why is there such a disproportionate imbalance in the police service in Northern Ireland?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The IRA.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I accept that there is a lot of evidence to show that there is harassment, victimisation and violence against Catholic serving members of the police service. Of that there is no doubt. That may give greater comfort, not to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is not guilty of that, but to others in his community who have a chill factor in this context, which makes it difficult for people from that Catholic community to join the RUC. Our proposal will give comfort to that part of the community. We are serious about, and committed to, changing the complexion of the police service in Northern Ireland to secure that proper religious or community balance for the future. If we do not do so, it will not be acceptable in many parts of Northern Ireland. People constantly ask me how many police officers live in south Armagh, how many live in west Belfast, how many live in the Creggan and how many live in other parts of Deny. The answer is probably none, and that must change. If a police service is to serve the whole community, its officers should be able to live in that community, These are big issues. Big changes must take place. We are not at the end of the road, but our proposed measures will help us to achieve what we want to achieve. We must continually review the situation, because we must ensure the efficacy of the system. Is it working? Is it achieving its objective? If not, we must look at it again; if so, we have achieved a major success. That is why the amendments are essential.

DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

AGRICULTURE

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move, That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee on the Future of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (HC 659). Although the Prime Minister has kindly tabled a motion to allow debate to proceed until any hour, I hope that that hour will not be too far away. I understand that there is general support across the House for the aims of the report. I will briefly describe the thinking of the Committee and the background to the need for POST and explain the key recommendations in the report. I woke up this morning to hear the "Today" programme headlined by two science issues—bovine spongiform encephalopathy in connection with French beef, and the availability of the drug Relenza in the national health service. It is not uncommon for such key scientific issues to be prominent in the media. I think of issues such as genetics, global warming and climate change, the internet, medicines, stem cell research—the list goes on. Science stories have in some ways replaced the funny item at the end of the news, but they are far more serious and generate more public interest. The response must be to improve the information sources available to us as legislators. It is sometimes hard for us to admit our ignorance. We are expected to be experts on everything, but science and technology issues often test us and, in many cases, they are not issues of party politics. I would argue that a debate such as the stem cell research debate is tougher than many of the others that we face in the House. The Select Committee on Information wishes to do all it can to ensure that hon. Members have the best information possible to support their decisions. There is a phrase in computer science, "Garbage in, garbage out." We cannot guarantee that the reverse applies—that quality information in will result in quality legislation out, but the odds on creating good legislation have to be higher if Members are better informed. The recommendations in the report seek to do exactly that. POST was established on a temporary basis and reviewed by previous Information Committees in 1991 and again in 1995. I know that veterans of that debate are present tonight—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for example. The key recommendation in the report before us tonight is that POST should be made permanent from April 2001. We believe that that will provide security for the institution and its staff and will make possible some of the other developments for which we have argued in the report. We hope to see an improved career structure for staff working for Parliament in science and technology. We also recommend that the board structure remain essentially as it is, as it has served POST well. I know that the chairman of the board, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), has devoted a great deal of his time to ensuring the success of POST over recent years, as did the former distinguished chairman, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), who chaired the board for a considerable period. The board structure also allows important voices to be brought in from the wider scientific community, which adds to the work of POST. Finally, I refer to some of the key facts that demonstrate the value of POST to date, which we fully expect to be carried into the future. The list of POST notes is in the report and shows how productive the team has been. It is a small team of hard-working and skilled scientists with a high rate of output. Their timeliness has been excellent. I refer the House to the stem cell research report, which it produced in June this year, well ahead of the public debate. This timely and high quality advice is likely to increase in value to Members over time. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee referred to a paper in Nature in his submission to the Information Committee, which demonstrates how science and technology issues have moved up the parliamentary agenda over recent years. I have mentioned the increasing media interest, and Members' postbags will testify to their constituents' growing interest. I shall bring my comments to a close by quoting some of the evidence that was presented to the Information Committee. In keeping with the debate earlier today, it is from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, who wrote to us: As you might expect, the Committee has made infrequent use of the services of POST as relatively few scientific and technological matters fall within its remit. However, for an inquiry last year, the Committee sought evidence from the Meteorological Office on the possibility that global warming might enhance the frequency of severe storms in Northern Ireland. It received a highly technical submission from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change(part of the Meteorological Office), of which, at the Committee's request, POST promptly prepared an excellent non-technical digest. The language of this formed the basis of the relevant paragraph in the Committee's report. The Committee found it very useful to have the necessary expertise in-house. That submission shows that POST has managed to service a wide variety of Members' interests, including some of the more unlikely Select Committees of the House. I hope that the House will approve the report and put POST on a firm footing to maintain that level of service for years to come.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

I am proud to be chair of the POST board, which contains representatives of the Library, Members of both Houses and distinguished scientists from the community outside this place. The board considers all the issues that are relevant today and will be relevant over the next few months, and asks POST employees to get on with the job of providing us with the information that will help us in our debates. That is done in a very neutral way; POST does not take a biased or political view. It is sensitive to people's interests and is extremely informative. I recently attended, on behalf of the POST board, a meeting in Berlin. There were many people there from other Parliaments who looked forward to having access to information of a scientific, medical or technical nature to inform new legislation. The POST board and its work were held in the highest esteem. Many Governments of other countries have now said, "The structure that you have in the British Parliament is wonderful; we should do that." I am very proud to have been the chair of the board and to have heard the debates. In a previous life, I was head of a large university department, which attained one of the highest levels of excellence in the research assessment exercise. If I were assessing the POST board and its work, I would say that they were five star, like some of the departments at Oxford, Cambridge and elsewhere. POST's work is amazingly good and very informative. In many debates in this place hon. Members use what POST says, and many hon. Members read it over their cornflakes or at their dinner table and inform themselves, and benefit from the erudition that is in those documents. There are many things that we could look forward to doing in terms of science and technology. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke about the paper referred to in Nature. That is the highest accolade of publication. Probably I was one of the authors of the article that is mentioned, and to get it in Nature is five star in itself, which is not bad for an MP—it is better than I ever did when I was the boss of a university department, so being a Member of Parliament is not too bad in terms of being recognised. On scientific and technological issues, such as telecommunications masts and mobile telephones, POST informs people in this place and the other place of the science and technology involved, the issues that we should focus on and the difficulties of legislation in those areas, based on good and proper science. I am proud to say that POST has distinguished itself internationally. It is recognised across Europe, and many other countries, including the United States, are now adopting the way that it operates. I hope that, in future, one or two additional members of staff will allow us to penetrate other areas of science, such as medicine, that are coming up very fast. The three people who work at POST could be increased to four or five without any detriment to the information that helps us take our decisions. I hope that the House will support this very thorough report. Many of us have spoken, in Select Committees and elsewhere, of our interest in scientific developments that are taking place countrywide. POST has really been successful in informing the public and getting the public involved in science. No organisation in this country knows better how to get technical and difficult information over to the public. POST has taken on that important role seriously. Hon. Members will know from the debate on stem cells that we had in the House last Friday that we spent many minutes discussing how the public would understand a stem cell and the potential advantages of the research. POST's report helped that debate and moved it forward. The House should award its accolades to POST for what it has done from its small base just 200 yards away. We should provide it with the status and permanency that will ensure that we are better informed, that our publications are more effective and that resources are provided. Debates on science, technology and medicine feature more prominently than ever before, and there has been a sixfold increase in the number of parliamentary questions on those subjects in the past few years. I have heard science quoted in the House that does us real discredit, but POST has helped to raise standards and made us much more scientifically literate. None of us will ever be a Nobel prize winner, but at least we shall understand the issues and be able to talk to our constituents on a much more informed basis. POST has played a major part in enabling us to do that.

Michael Clark (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I welcome the report and thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and his Committee for the work that they have done in scrutinising the activities of POST. In the previous Parliament, I had to go before the Information Committee in the same way as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has done in this Parliament. However, he has had more success than me. I managed to achieve a three-year and a five-year extension, but he has persuaded the Information Committee that POST should become a permanent feature of parliamentary life. I shall not speak for long, but I would like to reminisce on what happened in 1985, because tonight's decision to make POST a permanent feature of parliamentary life is the culmination of 15 years' work. In 1985, we became aware of the work that the Office of Technology Assessment—the OTA—was doing in the United States to inform Congress and the President of scientific issues. We thought that it would be a good idea to have something similar in this Parliament. Three Members of Parliament went to Washington to study the OTA and produced a report suggesting that we should have such an organisation here. We went to see the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, and told her of our plans. She thought that it was a very good idea to have such a body to increase scientific knowledge in Parliament, so we asked for Government funding for it. She replied, "Oh no, certainly not. If it is such a good idea, you will find money for it from industry, academia and institutions outside Parliament." She then reached for her famous handbag, took out her cheque book and wrote a cheque for £100. She said, "Raise the money yourself, and let this be the first £100 to get it going." In the next two years, we raised more than £170,000 and were able to institute POST with just three or four researchers and fellows. POST was a tight ship and the hon. Member for Norwich, North will agree that it remains a tight ship. Its director, Professor David Cope, uses his resources very efficiently. That contrasts with the OTA, which got bigger and bigger until it became so large and expensive to run that it was disbanded. The organisation on which we modelled ourselves no longer exists, but ours has remained neat and small. I must pay tribute to our first director, Dr. Michael Norton, who held the post from 1989 to 1998.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

indicated assent.

Michael Clark (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. Dr. Norton was a superb director. He got the organisation started with its short notes and longer, more detailed scientific reports. He helped to establish POST' s reputation, and he has left behind a legacy of which he can be proud. As well as helping parliamentarians with proactive notes about scientific issues of the day, POST is capable of helping, and does help, Select Committees when they want an idea of whether a scientific issue should be investigated. POST will write an initial report for the Committee, and when the Committee has decided on a line of inquiry, POST will assist on scientific matters. Of the advisers that the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am Chairman, has called in to help in its inquiries, more than 50 per cent. have been recommended by POST. The organisation does many things to raise the level of scientific knowledge in the House, and I am pleased that we are welcoming the Information Committee's report. In my evidence to the Committee, I remarked: Parliamentary funding provides POST with an enviable degree of independence, and, as I said way back in 1994, makes the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology far more Parliamentary and no less scientific or technological. I welcome the report and commend those who have studied POST and concluded that it should become a permanent feature of the parliamentary estate. I am sure that all hon. Members wish it well in the future.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) for doing a splendid job when he was chairman of POST. He developed the organisation from the original form that he described. I did not realise that I would find myself on the same side as Lady Thatcher on the issue of Parliament's need for advice. The hon. Gentleman transformed POST in 1994 by persuading the House and the Information Committee to move towards the model that we now have. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) rightly praised the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in his capacity as chairman of POST. There has been continuity in the work that has been done, and as the only Member who has been on the Information Committee in the two Parliaments, I have studied that work carefully. I took the Committee's decision on POST extremely seriously because it concerned the spending of public money, which is what we are discussing now. I urge those who have any doubts about POST to read annexe 4 on pages 20 to 23 of the report which lists the excellent papers that POST has produced. Those must be beneficial to Members of Parliament. I started my career—not quite so eminently as my hon. Friend—in a university laboratory and left some years later, having developed several important X-ray technologies. I make it clear that my scientific background is not enough; there is a huge gap in my knowledge on scientific matters, as there is in the knowledge of every hon. Member. It is a weakness in all our legislative procedures that we do not fully understand the scientific and ethical issues surrounding the difficult decisions that we make, and we will fail in our responsibilities to our constituents unless we achieve that understanding. POST is an excellent way, at a low cost, to help inform Parliament. The hon. Member for Rayleigh referred to what has happened in the United States and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to his recent meeting in Berlin. It is clear from Parliaments elsewhere in the world, including some of the emergent democracies, that there is a desire for parliamentarians to receive better scientific information. Few of us come from scientific disciplines and there is a desire for our knowledge base to be increased. POST is a vehicle that will enable that to happen. I congratulate the POST board on its activities in this and the previous Parliament. I fully endorse—as a member of the Information Committee, I would because the report was unanimous—the remarks of the hon. Member for Hallam. POST is an excellent body and we need more of it.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I declare an interest because the director of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Professor David Cope, is one of my constituents; he is typical of the scientific excellence that we come to associate with Broxtowe. As the points made by those who preceded me summarised what I wanted to say, I shall not detain the House for long. I suspect that, like many hon. Members, when I receive a glossy document in the post, printed with many pictures and 40 pages long, my instinct is to chuck it in the bin. That is the fate of much of the printed matter that comes through the post. The reports from POST, rather like Le Monde, are usually not illustrated. If they are, the illustrations are pertinent. The reports are four pages long and they pass what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) described as the cornflakes test—we can understand a complex issue while eating, or drinking, a bowl of cornflakes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, Members have great difficulty in grasping the complexity of many issues; I am one of those Members. It is surprising that we are expected to be familiar with so many issues. It is essential that we have a body such as POST, which is able to provide information that is small and perfectly formed—like the organisation itself.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Speaking as someone who is certainly small but would not claim for one moment to be perfectly formed, I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am conscious of the scientific expertise with which he speaks. He will be aware of the document entitled "The Sun and Space Weather", which was produced in November 1999. Perhaps he can enlighten me as to its central thesis.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

The hon. Gentleman has been watching too much of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?" POST is a good predictor of issues to come. Stem cells have already been mentioned. Another issue that arose a few months ago was that of carbon sinks, which is now the central debating ground for the post-Kyoto conference. We would be in a mess without POST. We need it permanently. Let us keep it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It has been an interesting debate, and having listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), I have little to add to it. The official Opposition's view is that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology performs a valuable function. The only point that arises from reading the report, and which may properly be noted, is that one dissenting voice suggested that at times POST overlapped with the activities of other briefing committees. I think that the Select Committee on Defence expressed that view. However, that is a detail—a simple matter of co-ordination that can easily be addressed by the board itself. The value of the reports is beyond doubt; I have read several and found them informative. I hope that the House will approve the Committee's report.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am pleased to follow so many colleagues who have a scientific background. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) all have a science degree. I do not think that that is true of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and it is certainly not true of me. I readily confess that I doubt that I would pass even the cornflakes test: I regularly receive and read POST reports and, sometimes, I have had to read them two or three times to understand them properly. I shall certainly follow up the report mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Science and the explanation of science is important to all parliamentarians—for example, in connection with issues such as genetically modified organisms, stem cell research and BSE and its links with CJD. A more practical matter of concern to many of our constituents is telecommunications, the subject of the Stewart report. All are important issues that Members of Parliament need to learn about and understand. I was strongly struck by the example of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs going to POST for advice. One the points highlighted in the recent Liaison Committee report is the need for central services to advise Select Committees.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I confess to knowing little about the existence of POST. Several key issues have been mentioned, one of which is being discussed now by the Deputy Prime Minister, yet POST does not appear to have included in any of its reports an evaluation of whether global warming is occurring and, if so, to what extent. Why is that?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had little time to study these matters, but I understand that POST has examined that issue. One of the main issues being addressed by The Hague conference is the concept of carbon sinks—a difficult issue that needs a great deal of work. POST has achieved a lot, but those who are involved with it know that there remains much to be done.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Let me assist the Minister and save him time that he might otherwise spend going through the reports. I can refer him to the 1990 report on global warming, the 1992 report on global warming update and subsequent reports, from the 1993 report on carbon dioxide levels to the report published in October this year on implementing the Kyoto climate change agreements.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Let me conclude by saying that I do not think that sufficient attention is given to science, its importance and the need to promote it. In my view, the debate on GMOs has been characterised by ignorance. There is far more to be done, and I am delighted that POST is there to inform us. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee on the Future of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (HC 659).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bracknell Primary Care Group

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I start by thanking the Speaker, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ensuring that I could so quickly bring an urgent matter involving my constituency to the attention of the House. I also thank the Under-Secretary for coming to reply to the debate. It is not very often that a member of the shadow Cabinet who is also a Privy Councillor and has been a Member of Parliament for 20 years introduces an Adjournment debate. By and large, we are fortunate enough to be able to ensure through other channels that our constituents' interests are properly looked after. I regret to say that in the case of Bracknell primary care group's application for trust status, the disgraceful way in which the application has been handled by Bracknell regional health authority, the cavalier manner in which my letters have received no reply and the way in which the primary care group has been treated by the arrogant Sir William Wells and his colleagues has caused me, unprecedentedly, to write to the Speaker and request this Adjournment debate. I will say more later about the lack of reasons for the trust status application being refused. First, I shall turn the clock back a few months for the benefit of the Minister. Berkshire health authority, which has been nothing but co-operative throughout, made it clear, as I believe the Minister will confirm, that every primary care group in Berkshire should, if possible, obtain trust status at the same time—in April 2001. There are clear advantages across the county for all primary care groups to move to trust status at once. Some 10 days ago, the regional health authority informed Slough, Reading, Wokingham and Newbury that they were to obtain trust status next April—but not Bracknell. Bracknell has an excellent reputation and outstanding doctors and health workers. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency for the best part of 18 years, I very rarely receive complaints about primary health care in the borough. The primary care group seemed an ideal candidate for trust status. An initial vote of general practitioners did not support trust status. For other reasons, many of those voting voted against as a protest. That should not be a reason for the trust application to be turned down. Subsequently, there was a second and much more valid vote, in which only eligible general practitioners voted. As the Minister should be aware, in the first vote, locums and assistants voted, and the whole practice in B infield had to be counted in the Wokingham vote because at that point it had not been transferred to the Bracknell primary care group area, even though Binfield is part of Bracknell Forest borough. The second vote, for which all GPs were eligible, overwhelmingly supported trust status for the primary care group. In addition to that, all the other stakeholders are, like me, passionately in favour of the trust being set up as soon as possible. I refer to the excellent district nurses, health visitors, district midwives, community physiotherapists and speech therapists. They have all been ignored by an overbearing regional health authority that has consistently neglected Bracknell, and by an arrogant chairman, Sir William Wells, who, I regret to say, does not even bother to reply to letters from Members of Parliament. The moment that I heard that Bracknell's trust status might not have been granted, I wrote to Sir William on 6 November. That was some time ago. I have not received an acknowledgement, let alone a comprehensive reply. One can understand how upset health workers in my constituency are when their Member of Parliament writes to the regional health chairman, marking the letter urgent, to say that he gathers that the chairman is about to turn down their application for trust status yet grant it to other primary care groups in the county, and to put forward an excellent case for trust status going ahead for Bracknell, only to be completely ignored. There has been no reply whatsoever. That, again, is the arrogant Sir William Wells. A week later, on 13 November, after the primary care group had been summoned to the regional headquarters and had been told that its application had been turned down, I again wrote to the chairman asking why and complaining that the group had been given no reasons. By now, no one will be surprised to hear that the arrogant Sir William has, to date, not replied to me. He is a public servant, paid for with the hard-earned taxes of my constituents, and I know that the Minister will deeply disapprove of such a cavalier manner. Let us briefly move on to when the Bracknell primary care group attended upon the regional health authority at its headquarters. No reasons were given for its application being turned down. It was told at the meeting that it was not allowed to take notes. I do not think that, outside the old Soviet Union, many doctors have to attend meetings where they are told by civil servants that they are not allowed to take notes. A huge document was produced and Bracknell primary care group was told that it contained the reasons for the refusal of its application, that it had five minutes to read the document, but could not take it away and study it. Naturally, in five minutes one cannot get to the bottom of the reasons contained in such a comprehensive document. On 13 November, I asked Sir William Wells to give the reasons. If trust status has been turned down for an excellent primary care group, we have every reason to want to know why. Additionally, and even more sinisterly, some members of the primary care group have been threatened with the fact that it would not be wise to go to their Member of Parliament or to cause trouble—that it would be best to stay quiet; otherwise future applications for trust status would not be granted. The Bracknell primary care group was then told, under duress, to withdraw its original application because it would be turned down, and, if it was formally turned down, it would affect a future application. That is deeply unsatisfactory. As I suspect the regional health authority will have told the Minister, the application was withdrawn, so there are no problems. Berkshire health authority has now suggested that there might be a virtual Bracknell primary care trust, whatever that means. It refers to it as a trust in all but name and law. That is a poor alternative; it is not the real thing. It means two upheavals: moving from group to virtual trust and, if successful, in April 2002 to full trust status. No doubt Berkshire health authority, which has been supportive throughout, was trying to be helpful again, but it is not sufficient. I share the aspirations of the Minister and the Secretary of State, as does my shadow Cabinet colleague, the Opposition health spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that, wherever possible, trusts are a good thing because they give local people power to decide their own destiny. That is why the Government have rightly encouraged primary care groups to follow hospitals to trust status. Without trust status, the primary care group has to rely on the regional health authority. It is obvious from my comments that we have no confidence in that authority, especially under the chairmanship of the arrogant Sir William Wells. The position is bad for the morale not only of doctors but of other stakeholders. It also means that for another year or 15 months, an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy will exist and local health workers and doctors will not be able to make their own decisions and continue to provide primary care effectively and efficiently to the benefit of my constituents. I shall conclude by addressing specific remarks to the Minister. We now depend on her because the application for trust status has been turned down to date. She will realise that we have no faith in the region or Sir William Wells. Will she, as Minister, personally look at the application? I want it to be judged simply on merit. For those with professional expertise, it is inconceivable that other primary care groups in Berkshire have gained trust status while excellent Bracknell has not. We are confident that the Minister will reach the same conclusions if she examines the case on merit. I should like confirmation from the Minister that it is incompatible with a free and open society, which she and I support, for an application for trust status to be turned down without the provision of reasons, which should be in the public domain. Members of the primary care group do not know the reasons and the Member of Parliament has not been given them. That inevitably casts a slur on everybody; the alternative is that the regional health authority and Sir William Wells have something to hide. Whatever the position, it is deeply unsatisfactory. We are approaching the end of November; the trusts will be set up in April 2001. It is not too late for Bracknell to receive trust status because other areas in Berkshire to which I referred were granted their status only 10 days ago. I therefore urge the Minister to review the case, publish the reasons for the regional health authority's refusal to allow the application to proceed and, with the Secretary of State, to consider the future of Sir William Wells.

Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) on raising primary health care trusts tonight. Although the main subject of the debate is trust status for the Bracknell primary care group, I need to say a few words about the overall framework in which trusts are developing. I also hope to be able to explain the reasons for the decisions that were made in Bracknell, not least to make it clear that the application was not turned down. It never reached the stage of being put before Ministers. I shall try to place that in context. When we published the national health service plan in July, nobody questioned what was at stake. In many ways, the plan was about reforming the NHS, which had come under attack not only from patients but from within the organisation. People realised that change was necessary. Underfunding hampered the NHS, but so did its operation. The way it was organised to make people wait, the barriers to efficient use of staff, and the chasm between the NHS and social care, all had to be tackled. The NHS needed money, but it also needed change. The NHS plan is about investment and reform, money and modernisation. The money comes at a price; the price is change. The need to change the way the NHS operates is acknowledged in many places, including Berkshire. We had to consider access to primary care because, during the consultation, the need for more tests, diagnosis and treatment in primary care settings was identified. Proper priority needed to be given to major killer diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease. We needed to stop postcode rationing for drugs and to secure better access to high-tech equipment. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has played a significant role in that. However, that change can come about only with the full involvement of everyone in primary care. We have already allocated some £54.5 million to primary care groups and trusts this year to kick-start the expansion of primary care services, and further investment will follow. It is important that those funds be used strategically to develop new services and improve access to primary care. However, although primary care will receive earmarked funds, those are not the only funds that will affect how services are delivered. More than £20 billion has been devolved to primary care groups and trusts, to commission services. That money must be used responsibly. The creation of primary care groups was a vital step in the biggest devolution of power and decision making ever seen in the NHS. It brought together doctors, nurses, community nurses, health visitors and local people and put them in the driving seat in deciding how local patients would be looked after and treated. We have set up a central programme of support and development to help to manage the transition, because the cultures of corporation and management that have developed over the past 50 years were and are variable. For starters—this is extremely close to my heart because I have information technology responsibilities—we have provided some £50 million to help all PCGs to improve their IT infrastructure and data management, so that all the partners in the system can communicate effectively. The national primary care development team was set up to ensure that all PCGs have access to expert advice and support. We expected each group not to reinvent the wheel, but to learn from good practice. We have issued guidance to ensure that all PCGs have organisational development plans in place that are relevant to their needs. That has already made a real difference to patients, and I shall give examples from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. He has acknowledged that good work is going on in Bracknell. All those involved show great commitment, and we recognise that. Bracknell has an exercise referral scheme; the Bracknell assessment and rehabilitation team offers rehabilitation packages; waiting times for physiotherapy services have been reduced by three to six weeks, and additional physiotherapy has been provided in the community; and an innovative project on access to primary care for people with learning disabilities has been developed with the centre for community development. In addition, general practices in Bracknell are participating in a primary care collaborative, which brings practitioners together to develop simple but effective improvements in the way that services are provided. The collaborative is considering access to GPs and nurses and to secondary care and coronary heart disease facilities. Such examples of good practice have been achieved by ensuring better working across boundaries and the development of robust links between primary and secondary care. That, with a more effective direction of resources, was meant improved services for patients in Bracknell. The development of primary care groups into primary care trusts provides an unparalleled opportunity. It will allow local health professionals to control budgets that will enable them to shape hospital and community services for patients in their area and to invest in improving the primary and community services provided by doctors, nurses and other local professionals. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not falling into a trap into which I occasionally fall—I am always quickly told off when I talk about doctors and nurses alone. He acknowledged that more than 60 per cent. of those who work in the NHS are not doctors or nurses but support staff who are part of the chain of care. They are extremely important, and I assure him that we recognise their contribution. Trusts can develop services more integrated between general practice, community services and social services, and can give patients better access to health care by identifying which services most need developing. Above all, decision making must be brought closer to patients and must be shaped by the professionals who most often meet patients' needs. Nationally, some 40 PCTs are up and running, and more than 130 PCGs have expressed an interest in becoming PCTs from 1 April 2001—which leads me to the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Bracknell was one of the PCGs hoping to take the step to PCT status in 2001. Its application was part of a wider plan in Berkshire to move, on a whole-system basis, to six PCTs, which would be broadly coterminous with the unitary authorities, by April 2001. There is no such thing as a blueprint for PCT applications. Certain criteria must be met, and we have specified four basic criteria. The first involves a vision: applicants must be able to demonstrate their need to become a PCT, and also demonstrate what will be achieved as a result. The second relates to support: applicants must show that their applications have received local support from all stakeholders. I was disturbed by the right hon. Gentleman's perception of the way in which the first and second ballots went. I hope that, as we move on—and I shall go on to explain how we can move on very positively—any such issues will be resolved, and it will be made clear who is involved. For instance, all general practitioners are involved. Thirdly, applicants will need to show competence with regard to clinical leadership, management capacity, technical systems and skills enabling them to manage large budgets and provide community services. Fourthly, they must be able to ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on other services, or service providers, within the health system involved. Unfortunately, the Bracknell PCT application did not meet all those criteria. More work is needed to consolidate and realise the plans outlined in the application, and to ensure that the PCT is fit for its purpose. The PCG and the health authority were fully aware of the concerns raised by the NHS executive about their plans, and worked hard to address them. However, it was not possible to complete all the necessary work in time to establish a PCT safely next April. That is unfortunate, but the needs of the patient must always come first. Once established, PCTs face a huge agenda: expanding the provision of services, integrating services transferred from community trusts with existing primary care services, developing the essential commissioning role, putting in place new clinical governance and quality regimes, and undertaking financial and human resources management on a considerable scale. It is important for them to be ready to take on the task. A PCT in Bracknell would not have been ready by April 2001, and it was felt that it would be irresponsible to let the application proceed. This is important. It was not that the application was turned down; it was that the negotiations to let it proceed never reached the stage at which it would be put before Ministers. It is vital for the new PCT to have local support, and the application did not demonstrate the existence of broad local support in Bracknell. I hope that all stakeholders will use the time available to make their support much plainer. The issue was raised with both the PCG and the health authority in the summer, but only limited progress has been made in the resolution of issues of concern. Let me give a broad example, based on my examination of various other applications and the number of local meetings that have been held. I understand that only 11 have been held in the Bracknell area. I would expect at least 20 to be held. Perhaps, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, his community feels it is working so well that it does not need to demonstrate that; but we need to see evidence of broad local support. The health authority and the PCG will need to build on the support that they already have over the coming months. I understand that they will be visiting GP practices and working with other professionals to explain the benefits of PCT status. In view of all the work still required to develop robust actions plans and to foster local support, the PCG and the health authority agreed with the regional office that it would be better to withdraw the current application. The PCG and the health authority will now work to improve the weaknesses identified, and aim to re-submit the application next spring. If the revised application meets the necessary criteria, the new PCT will be established in the autumn and will be ready to go live in April 2002. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is wondering what his constituents will suffer as a result of the delay. Let me emphasise that the quality of care received by patients in Bracknell, and indeed in Berkshire as a whole, will not be affected by the plans. The additional period of development is to ensure that patient care is of a high standard when the PCT assumes its responsibility. Any other course of action would have been foolish. Good quality service will continue to be provided in the interim. The health authority has already decided to maintain the existing community trust in east Berkshire for a further year for that purpose. In addition, the PCG will be bolstered by a project director to lead and to support further development of services. I note the right hon. Gentleman's concern that there may be a financial loss to the new PCTs in that period of development. He said that all the other PCGs in his area turning into PCTs may have an adverse effect on Bracknell, but I assure him that it will not. PCGs and PCTs receive their resources from the health authority, based on a weighted capitation formula. That will not be affected by the transfer of services later than originally planned. I make it clear that the further development that the PCG requires before the transition to PCT status is not a reflection of the efforts to date by the staff of the PCG. It is a case of being realistic. I put it on record that the commitment of those who have worked on that so far is fully recognised. There has been much good work, but the local support has not been shown sufficiently. I hope that we can remedy that. Perhaps the debate will help us all to mobilise that support. We must recognise the task that faces the PCG before the transition can be made. We would not be helping either staff or the people of Bracknell if the change went ahead prematurely. Promising work has already been done. I will expect the health authority to give the chief executive and other PCG staff further support to build on that. Primary care trusts are central to delivering our vision of the new modern NHS. They will ensure that the right services are available at the right time, in the right location for the right patients. I note the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions. I cannot look at the application as a Minister; it never proceeded as far as the ministerial decision stage. I certainly undertake—he will have no doubt about it—that I will watch developments in Bracknell carefully and ensure that we come to a position whereby the application can be brought forward. I was slightly disturbed that the right hon. Gentleman had the perception that people were trying to keep something secret. I know that aspiring PCTs have meetings with the regional office before they submit the application. Those meetings are supposed to be in confidence because it is prior to the application. I understand that some people may not have felt bound by the confidence, but, again, I will take a close look. It is to no one's benefit if ill feelings arise in an area. If that can be resolved, I will look into it. I fully recognise that the right hon. Gentleman looks forward to his constituents benefiting from PCT status. When the necessary action has been taken, they will. If we can engage the stakeholders more closely on the ground, they will be in a position to take the application forward. Then I will look at it with keen interest, and with greater knowledge of what has been happening on the ground than I had before the debate. Therefore, I am grateful to him for raising the matter. I hope that I have dealt with his questions.