Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2003.

Standing Committee E

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Do you object to jackets being removed?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

No objection. Ladies may also remove their jackets, if they wish to do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Lords) the Standing Committee do meet (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 25th February at five minutes to Nine o'clock) on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock;

(2) six sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLE Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 1st Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10 — 2nd Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10 (so far as not previously concluded) 5.00 p.m. 3rd Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16 — 4th Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16 (so far as not previously concluded 5.00 p.m. 5th Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill — 6th Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded)—[Jane Kennedy.] 5.00 p.m.

Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded)—[Jane Kennedy.]

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The fact that you are chairing the Committee is a matter of satisfaction,

Mr. Benton. During our proceedings I wish to review some of the points with which the official Opposition want to take issue. The Bill is difficult, and to some extent it could be argued that it is unnecessary. I draw attention to the Second Reading debate, especially the speech of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said:

''Implementation of Patten was achieved in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.''

He went on to say:

''Indeed, in many respects, that Act was Patten plus, with knobs on''

and that he considered that to be a discharge of

''Patten lock, stock and barrel.''

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the strictures and disciplines that could be placed on the police, in particular on the Chief Constable, during inquiries and investigations:

''A police service that is constantly at risk of being inquired into and investigated, with its policies and actions questioned and challenged, its judgments called into question, and its practices constantly put under a microscope by the accountability bodies—and, for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, there is more than one body—cannot easily get on with the job of policing.''

That is a matter of serious concern. If the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 implemented Patten, why are we here today? Dare I ask if further concessions are to be made in the republican interest? Are they the result of Weston Park? If Weston Park moved the goalposts—to use that idiom—what was there in it for the Unionists? The right hon. Gentleman also said:

''I want to go back to my remarks on the constant, unrelenting pressure on the police, with their every move, judgment and action scrutinised, brought out into the open, put into a goldfish bowl, and debated. My fear—and I would put it no more strongly than this—is that the provisions of the new Bill will tilt further in that direction, creating risk in the evolution of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

A balance must be struck between constantly reviewing the police and allowing them to get on with their job''.

I wholly concur with that sentiment.

The number of members on the Northern Ireland Policing Board is currently set at 19. How many of those 19 are needed to call for reports? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool also said:

''I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill''.—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 681–84.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the programme motion. I am not sure where his remarks are leading us.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am most grateful for your direction, Mr. Benton. The context in which my remarks are cast is that I hope that, given the programme motion and the time available, important issues can be considered. I want to outline at an early stage in Committee what I consider to be the important issues in the Bill, so that we can make a judgment about a time envelope for our debate that would adequately accommodate them.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am prepared to allow the

debate to go on a little longer, but may I remind him that we are addressing the programme motion?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

In that case, Mr. Benton, I intend to speak at a more economical length. Within the time frame that we are currently discussing, I am anxious that in the Bill, departing as it does from the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—which the right hon. Member for Hartlepool described as ''Patten with knobs on''—we are departing from the balance between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board, which many of us thought had been set at a correct equilibrium in the 2000 Act. The Bill gives more power to the board and, to some extent, less to the Chief Constable, who we think should have a free hand in policy matters.

I have been twice corrected by you, Mr. Benton, and that affects my demeanour and my approach to such matters so early in the preliminary debate. I am prepared to draw my remarks to a conclusion, having advised the Committee that some things should be improved—as they were, to some degree, in another place—and also that some things are, arguably, unnecessary. The 2000 Act is the correct basis for procedure. We question why it is necessary to have another piece of legislation now.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and I shall limit myself to the programme motion. I note that there are intended to be six sittings on the Bill, and it seems to me that that should be enough time to go through the amendments and the clauses before us. There was a comprehensive Second Reading debate, and I made my views known at that time.

By way of apology, I might mention that although we are having six sittings on this Bill, the Standing Committee on the Hunting Bill has now had 30 sittings. Obviously, there are those who feel that that Bill is five times more important than policing in Northern Ireland. I apologise in advance, because the unexpected extra sittings of that Committee, which are taking place even as I speak, will draw me away from this Committee. I hope that Committee members will be patient with me if I am absent, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will be able to take on some of the responsibilities.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) raised some general issues with regard to the Bill, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred to those issues on Second Reading. On balance, the Liberal Democrats feel that the Bill is appropriate, although we take issue with specific points that we will make known as the Committee proceeds.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Benton. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, particularly as it is several years since I had the pleasure of sitting on a Standing Committee. I look forward also to seeing how Committees operate under the new regime, but I approach the new regime—it is new to me, although other Committee members have experience of it—with a certain amount of trepidation. I recall the days when

there were comparatively few timetables—they used to be called guillotines—and that they were a sign of dishonour on the part of the Government who introduced them. Now we have guillotines for everything, but they are called timetables. That is perhaps a form of rebranding, through which it is hoped that the dishonour that ought to be attached to them will be escaped.

I shall make two comments on the Committee programme. First, I notice that it is proposed that we sit next Tuesday morning. I am inclined to welcome that, because it will limit any temptation that I might have to linger on Monday evening for whatever discussions may be taking place. In order to attend the Committee next Tuesday morning I shall, of course, have to quit Belfast by late afternoon on Monday. That will fit quite nicely with my likely intentions on that day. However, Mr. Benton, you will understand if I do not elaborate further on that matter.

The second and perhaps more serious matter is that I have doubts about the programme. I have looked at the arrangements regarding the number of clauses per sitting and the timetabling of amendments, and I wait with interest to see whether there are days on which we do not take the full amount of time and others on which debate is cut off. One of the disadvantages of any sort of programme is that it lacks flexibility. I shall follow this matter with interest. I remember when discussions would take place between the Whips, who were usually able to ensure that all matters were discussed and that time was used efficiently. I suspect that the programme might be inefficient.

I also wish to place on record my complete opposition to and dislike of the present hours. I think that they are ridiculous and that they deprive the House of Commons of the ability to consider matters properly. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has already said that the present hours are having a serious, negative effect on his activities. This situation is not in the interest of the House and it is not in the interest of the public. I know that you cannot do anything about it, Mr. Benton, but I wish to put on record my view that the new hours are utterly foolish, that they are seriously affecting the operation of the House and that they are making life inconvenient for hon. Members. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.'']

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We have heard some fascinating contributions, especially from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I would like to agree, at length, with the right hon. Gentleman on the stupidity of the present hours, but I suspect that you would get fidgety rather quickly. I simply put on the record that I agree with every word that he said.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the purpose of debating programme motions is undermined by all of us being double or triple booked during the middle of the day? That unquestionably harms our ability to scrutinise legislation proposed by the Government.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I was coming to that point. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he half hopes that the Committee will meet next Tuesday so that he is not asked to agree to more surrenders to the IRA. He should book his flight now, because the Committee will sit on that day. We will help him resist all temptations and blandishments to get involved in another sell-out, so he is safe in that respect.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to see how the new regime operates. He is in for a dreadful shock; he will find some of it fairly unpalatable. First, he will find that the rebranding of that draconian measure, the guillotine, is nothing more than window-dressing to make the unacceptable seem trendy. As he says, the timetabling of Bills is intended to improve efficiency, but the efficiency of a dictatorial Government in railroading whatever they want through Parliament, irrespective of the views of right hon. and hon. Members, and efficiency in the attempt to become a dictatorship, has nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman will witness that, and will realise that the principle of guillotining everything has nothing to do with democracy, scrutiny or debate.

I speak from experience. A few weeks ago, I was on a Committee considering a 90-clause Bill, and the amount of time that the Government decided was necessary enabled us to consider fewer than 30 of the 90 clauses, and none of the schedules. That is what is meant by efficiency when it comes to guillotines. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) if he wants me to do so.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

If the hon. Gentleman did not engage in time-wasting, he could get on with discussing the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If I were not speaking to the business of the Committee, you would have stopped me by now, Mr. Benton. Therefore, in the view of the Chairman, I am not wasting time; I am addressing an issue. It is typical of Back-Bench Labour Members to want to stifle any criticism of the Government's wish to trample over democracy, and that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to achieve.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have tried hard to keep up with the intensive, persistent efforts of the Government to force through huge amounts of legislation regarding Northern Ireland in a short time have had to put up with debates on statutory instruments where we have had to say yes or no to entire Bills after a half-hour debate? Perhaps we should discuss reprogramming those debates to enable us, first, to attend all the meetings, instead of them being held all at the same time, and, secondly, to make amendments, rather than simply giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and Her Majesty's Opposition have done their level best to deal with the legislation that was part way through the Assembly when it was

suspended. We once protested that we thought that the situation was in some ways undemocratic, but we fully accepted the undertaking that half-finished matters would be finished as quickly as possible. When necessary, we have co-operated with the Liberal Democrats in that process, having served notice that anything new that is brought forward must be subjected to proper scrutiny.

I can only assume that certain Labour Members do not even want us to debate the programme motion. Standing Orders make it clear that, for half an hour at the beginning of consideration of a Bill in Committee, it is possible to debate an attempt to trample on democracy, and I make no apologies for doing so. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North thinks that I am time-wasting, but he has heard nothing yet. He should wait until we start filibustering.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Might I carefully suggest that my hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to Back-Bench Labour Members? Surely, as the Committee proceeds, they will be distinguished by their frequent comments and contributions to debate.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Heaven forfend that I—a reasonable person who has never been known to waste time—be unfair. I look forward to hearing interventions made by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North and I promise that when he makes speeches, I shall accuse him of nothing other than addressing the Bill. However, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is heading for a serious shock about the general principle of guillotining and he will not enjoy what he finds.

The matter does not end there because not only do we have a limit of six sittings, but there are knives at two points during our consideration. I made it clear in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday that I have no objections to the order in which the Bill will be considered because there are good, sensible reasons why we should not consider the clauses in numerical order from clause 1. My colleagues and I do not disagree with that. However, we disagree with being told how long we should consider each bit. I agree with the Government saying, ''This is a sensible order in which to consider the Bill'', but I disagree with them saying, ''You will only be allowed one, two or three sittings because that is the pace at which we wish to go.'' That should not happen and I shall ask the Committee to divide on the motion because I want to register yet again that that is not the way in which we should do things.

Although we object to the guillotine, the Government will have their way. Within that straitjacket, it is sensible that we should see how things go. In the previous Committee on which I served, it became blindingly obvious during the first sitting that the guillotine arrangements were wrong and that they should be changed. If they had not been there in the first place, we would have got along much better and would not have had to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee. I say now to my opposite number, the Government Whip, who cannot answer back, that if it is necessary to talk

about moving the knives, I shall be happy to join any discussion on behalf of the official Opposition.

The knives at 5 o'clock might be convenient for those who believe that the new hours are good and want to push off just after 5 o'clock for a night on the town. If that is what Back Benchers are all about, the programme motion achieves that aim admirably. However, the motion does not make for sensible, structured debate because as that unwinds, it may become clear that a subject should be talked about for longer than the Government thought. A longer debate might be constructive and helpful for the Government. We should not always have to look at the clock saying, ''Good heavens, 5 o'clock is nearly here and we must curtail what we want to say about clause x or y because we must reach clauses 8 and 9, which are very important.'' Whatever we might want to say today ahead of clauses 8 and 9, we shall be constrained because those clauses are where the meat of our first two sittings lies.

Some crazy things could happen because we are worried about that. We might say that we shall not discuss fully clauses ahead of clauses 8 and 9 but find that there is not as much to say as we thought about those clauses. We could arrive at the end of our consideration before 5 o'clock because of an artificial attempt to stifle democracy within an overall attempt to trample over democracy.

In normal circumstances, it would be argued that we do not have sufficient time to consider the Bill—the knives are wrong. However, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann touched on what he and others will be doing next week. I have heard it advanced that it would be in the best interests of certain people to ensure that the Bill gets out of Committee this week—to rush it in fewer than six sittings. That would mean that there would be no temptation for the Government to make further concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA by stuffing new clauses into the Bill next week. For the avoidance of doubt, may I make it crystal clear that I hope that the Minister will reassure us about whatever next week's negotiations may bring? I have my views about that but this is not the occasion to go down that route because you, Mr. Benton, will say that that has nothing to do with the Bill. Will the hon. Lady reassure us that if the negotiations require any changes to either the status quo of policing in Northern Ireland or additional concessions to be made in the Bill to Sinn Fein-IRA, they will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny? In other words, they should be first debated on the Floor of the House, meaning that every hon. Member would be entitled to attend.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government produce, or introduce, matters on Report by way of amendments, he would apply what he is saying to that? If that is the case, and the guillotine is imposed, is it not a fact that whatever discussion and deliberation takes place in Committee, the matter can be dealt with on Report in that arbitrary fashion—as it was previously, hence our presence here today?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was coming to that very point. If the Government deem any further measures necessary to appease Sinn Fein-IRA, one could argue, on a

technicality, that it was better to deal with them on Report than in Committee. It is wrong to do that on both counts, but if anything major is to be brought forward as an addition to the Bill, to limit the debate to the few members of this Committee would be an abuse of democracy.

I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will not use the Committee to deal with specific measures that started in another place and have been fully discussed there as a package, and are now here as a package. That is what I am focusing on. The hon. Gentleman, fairly, asks me what would I say if something were brought in on Report? With the technical exception that on Report, at least all Members of Parliament are entitled to speak, and that is a plus—

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

That was not the case. People were not allowed to speak. Some of the matters that were brought up were subject to the guillotine, so there was no discussion whatever.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is absolutely right. I am simply making the technical point that if there were not a guillotine, more people could contribute—but there is a guillotine here, too. The hon. Gentleman can object to what will happen on Report, as I do, but it is no easier for people to discuss new matters seriously within a six-sitting guillotined Committee. New clauses would be tagged on to one of the sections, and the same principles would apply here as apply on the Floor of the House.

I am simply making the technical point to the hon. Gentleman that theoretically, more people could be involved on Report, but I at one with him in saying that such things should not be done here—and they should not be done on Report, either. If there are negotiations next week, and if anything comes out of them that requires legislation, that should be dealt with in the proper way. It should be brought before both Houses of Parliament for Second Reading debates, for full scrutiny and consideration. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that matter.

The general principle of timetabling is wrong. The introduction of knives is wrong. If the Government are tempted to introduce anything other than what has been debated in another place, that too would be wrong.

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

I shall say a few words on the programme motion. I welcome the early start: dull would he or she be of soul who did not enjoy trudging over Westminster bridge at 7.30 in the morning to sit in Committee on a policing Bill. I believe that that is the most apt time of the day for indulging in such activities.

I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull that this is an unnecessary Bill. Had the Government done what they had been asked when discussing the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, it would not be necessary. The record shows that every change included in the Bill was subject to amendment in Committee; each one was argued against and defeated by the Government. It is interesting now to read the Government's explanatory notes to the Bill—

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (9) of Sessional Order C, relating to Programming Sub-Committees.

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolution are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Consultation with Board

Clause 1 - Consultation with Board

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 52, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 9.

No. 5, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Board' to 'the' in line 9 and insert 'on'.

No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out 'with a view to obtaining' and insert 'and obtain'.

No. 3, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert

'with a view to obtaining the support of'.

No. 53, in

clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'Constable', insert

'with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision'.

No. 4, in

clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'Constable', insert—

'(aa) the First Minister;'.

No. 54, in

clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

No. 55, in

clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 19.

No. 6, in

clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out

'with a view to obtaining'

and insert 'and obtain'.

No. 7, in

clause 1, page 2, line 4, after 'Constable', insert—

'(aa) the First Minister;'.

No. 9, in

clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end add—

'(4) In subsection (3)(a) after ''Constable'', insert ''the First Minister''.'.

No. 21, in

clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert

'and after ''State'', insert ''the First Minister''.'.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I shall speak in particular to the amendments that I tabled. The clause would amend sections 24 and 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Currently, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Chief Constable and anyone else the Secretary of State deems appropriate before determining or revising

long-term policing objectives and codes of practice on the exercise and functions of the board or the Chief Constable.

Committee members may have heard me say on other occasions that in Northern Ireland legislation I look for a particular virtue, which is that, as far as possible, the law of the Province should be convergent with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, it should be in line with the law in England and Wales. It is a state of grace for the law to be convergent in the various regions of our country, because those in our society live under a special discipline, which is that the citizen is deemed to know the law. That follows on from a Roman antecedent, whereby ignorance of the law is no excuse for transgressing. It is seemly for the law to be convergent so that the citizen has the best chance of knowing the law and observing it.

It has been the practice in the jurisdiction of England and Wales—I cannot speak with authority about Scotland, but I suspect that the arrangements there are similar—that there is an equilibrium and a fine balance in what has been called the tripartite arrangement between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board; in England and Wales the arrangement is between the Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities. I have no quibble about the police authority—in Northern Ireland, that is the Policing Board. I am interested in the concept of the balance between the Secretary of State, the relevant chief constable and the appropriate police authority. That balance has been carefully sculpted and nurtured over the years. It has worked well and it has been seen to work well.

The clause shifts the balance in that tripartite equilibrium and I am concerned about it because it does no good. It is stipulated that the

''Secretary of State must consult the board with''

—I quote with emphasis—

''a view to reaching agreement''

.

The Secretary of State must still consult the Chief Constable and anyone else, but with the statutory obligation to reach agreement. In his consultation with the board the Chief Constable is fettered, under a condition and a stipulation and almost under a pre-judgment, to go into such a discussion with a view to reaching agreement. The effect of the provision is—we are sure of our ground—to enhance the status of the board vis-à-vis the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable goes to the board not as an equal and not even possessed completely and roundly of his own authority; he must go to the board as a supplicant. This we do not like. The Chief Constable is being fettered in possibly the most difficult, sensitive and dangerous policing jurisdiction in this kingdom and he must go to the board as a supplicant. That is not the traditional freedom that we have known for a Chief Constable, which consists of unfettered authority in determining policy objectives. Surely, he must consult, but now he must consult with a view to reaching agreement.

At the risk of repeating myself, we are on the threshold of making the Chief Constable a supplicant to a board; but what kind of a board is it? It is certain that it will contain politicians. Are we to make the Chief Constable a supplicant to politicians? That is a rather dangerous road. We believe that the provision would downgrade the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable before the board. We were more content with the traditional tripartite agreement. Indeed, we were well content with the 2000 Act. Indeed, we were well content with the 2000 Act. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, on Second Reading of the Bill that became that Act, said that he thought that it was Patten to the full, Patten to the utterance and Patten—in the vernacular—with knobs on. Why are we revisiting the matter in this way, and why do we risk disturbing the tripartite balance?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The amendments tabled only in my name form two sub-groups. One convenient sub-group could be amendments Nos. 5, 1, 3 and 6, which relate to a train of thought that I shall explain in a moment. The other sub-group is amendments Nos. 4 and 7 to clause 1, amendment No. 9 to clause 2 and amendment No. 21 to clause 17. They all raise a virtually identical point, and I imagine that that is why the Clerks, in their wisdom, grouped them together.

The general points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull were correct and I shall not rehearse them again. However, it would be wrong to alter fundamentally the Chief Constable's status. We shall consider that in detail in due course. The way in which consultation with the board is structured is woolly minded. It seems that the Bill is not sure what it wants to say. It either says that there will be a process of asking people what they think and discussing that, although the power would lie with the person who starts the consultation, or that certain people will be required to agree to something. Both courses of action are technically acceptable and a logical way of doing business.

However, it is not sensible that proposed new subsection (2) in clause 1(1) says

''with a view to obtaining its agreement''.

What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that one must have the board's agreement, that one must try to get its agreement or that agreement does not matter? It is a most peculiar phrase.

Amendment No. 5 would get the Government out of the mess into which they have got themselves and might appeal to them. They might mean that we shall consult on something. If my amendment were accepted, the provision would read ''shall consult the Board'' on

''the proposed objectives or revision.''

Fine. I would have no quarrel with that; let us talk about it. If that is what the Government mean, that is what the Bill should say.

If the Government mean that the other sensible thing should happen, amendment No. 1 is suitable. I appreciate that it is a total contradiction of amendment No. 5, but I do not mind which amendment the Government choose, as long as they

choose one. Amendment No. 1 would mean that the Secretary of State should consult the board and obtain its agreement. Which is it to be: to consult on, or to obtain agreement? The phrase

''with a view to obtaining its agreement''

raises the question of what would happen if agreement were not reached. We would be at loggerheads, and we might need another Bill or to debate the matter all over again in order to clarify what the Government intend. I never know on such occasions why I try to be so helpful to a Government who I so detest, but I tabled the amendments in the spirit of saying, ''You made a mess of this, and here is a helpful suggestion from a kind Opposition Member to get you out of it.''

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It is appreciated.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to the Minister for her appreciation. Perhaps I have got it wrong if I am being appreciated this early in the proceedings.

Amendment No. 3 would rewrite subsection (2A)—

''Before determining or revising any objectives under this section, the Secretary of State shall also consult''—

by adding the words

''with a view to obtaining the support of''.

That is another way of proceeding if the first two amendments do not appeal and the Government do not want to roll over and accept one or the other.

Amendment No. 6 would mean that the Secretary of State shall consult the board and obtain its agreement rather than consulting the board

''with a view to obtaining its agreement''.

I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response on which of those she is going to accept. I hope she is not going to try to persuade us that the original wording is the ideal one. There are occasions when parliamentary draftsmen are not perfect, and this is one of those occasions when we can help them.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has returned. Amendments Nos. 4,7,9 and 21 relate to various places in the Bill where there is a list of people who shall be consulted or consulted to obtain the agreement of. I may have missed one or two of these lists, but my argument is the same whenever one appears. The Bill says that there should be consultation with

''(a) the Chief Constable; and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.''

I do not know why it is worth including a specific list of people who may be consulted, if that is followed by a catch-all phrase that allows anybody to be consulted. Why not just say, ''Consult anybody''? I am always suspicious of giving Secretaries of State powers to do what they please, regardless of the nature of the Government of the day. They should do what Parliament says.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull made a valid point: the Chief Constable is being made subservient to politicians. That is what is happening in this process. If the Government have determined to

make the Chief Constable subservient to politicians—something to which I object—the principal politician should be listed alongside the Chief Constable. In this instance that would be the First Minister, who speaks for the majority of people of Northern Ireland.

If the Chief Constable is to be made subservient, that should be admitted to and done openly; there should be no room for doubt in anybody's mind. It is possible that the Secretary of State may not like the First Minister; the First Minister of Northern Ireland may not see things in the Province in exactly the same way as the Government. Heaven forbid that that might happen.

If we leave the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State will be able to discuss matters with other politicians and wholly ignore the person who speaks on behalf of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That cannot be right. If politicians are to be involved in this process, it must be made clear. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has been the Deputy First Minister: he might like to add himself to the list, or add the current Deputy First Minister. I have no objections to that.

If politicians are to be involved in this process, we must make it clear that the principal politician or politicians should be added to the list of people who must be consulted. I hope that the Government will accept this point. It will be helpful if the First Minister accepts it.

The present situation is wrong in principle. I am a pragmatist as well as many other things. Indeed, I am helpful and pragmatic this morning. I am prepared to be pragmatic when sitting on a Committee and if I can help to make the Bill less awful, I am prepared to do so.

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

I note that this is a small, short clause, but that it has merited 13 or 14 amendments. It strains credibility to think how 13 or 14 amendments could be written into such a small clause. The broad point is that the clause is not about the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable; it is about the board and the nature of the consultations with it. In effect, the clause does absolutely what was required. It amends the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of Patten are fully implemented in the role of the Policing Board and that the board is properly respected by the Secretary of State. If there be devolution in future, the relevant person would not be the Secretary of State, he or she would be a Northern Ireland politician. The responsible person is presently the Secretary of State and it is essential that if the tripartite arrangement, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke and with which I agree, is to be maintained, that must be done on the basis of respect. Unfortunately, the 2000 Act did not include Patten's requirements for the sort of consultation that meant something.

I shall say a few words about the board in terms of the new policing dispensation in the north of Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull about the tripartite arrangement. The board will not be in the same position as police authorities in England and

Wales for a long time; it will not have the luxuries that those authorities enjoy. As much as we may envy those bodies, it will not be like them. The board will contain various people from different political parties—some will be bona fide politicians, some will be previous paramilitaries and others will be somewhere in between those two positions. The board will also have independent members, and the definition of an independent member of a Policing Board in the north of Ireland is especially difficult to define at any stage.

The board has an additional burden because it carries with it the symbolism of a new police service. To put it mildly, it is on a knife-edge every day of the week, every month of the year and, indeed, every year until the problem is resolved once and for all. It is right that both the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State—the clause refers to the Secretary of State, not the Chief Constable—deal with the board in a way that respects its position. Patten was clear that the Policing Board should have

''clearly defined and robust''

powers in relation to the Secretary of State.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him. He knows that I think that he is a brave man. He was present on Second Reading when the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, said with reference to the 2000 Act that it was Patten complete; in the vernacular, he said that it was Patten with knobs on. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about those observations of the 2000 Act?

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

It would take me some time to tell the hon. Gentleman that, and then it would not be printable. I shall answer the question as gently as I can. Had the right hon. Member for Hartlepool listened when the 2000 Act was going through its parliamentary process, we would not be in Committee today. Had he listened to advice, he would not have made such much of a mess of things. I shall go no further, except to say that we are discussing a political Bill, which is telling us that throughout its clauses. It is not Patten with nobs on. It is not Patten to create the burden that the Policing Board will have to bear in Northern Ireland.

Patten said that the board must have ''clearly defined and robust'' powers in relation to the Secretary of State. To ensure that, it was decided at Weston Park that the Secretary of State

''would consult the Board with a view to reaching agreement in setting his long term policing objectives''.

Given what the hon. Gentleman said, that is remarkable damning action to take. I shall repeat that statement to show how awful and radical it was. It was decided that the Secretary of State

''would consult the Board with a view to reaching agreement in setting his long term policing objectives''.

I see nothing bold or dramatic about such action. Surely that would be logical action for any Secretary of State to take with the Policing Board and for it to be included in the 2000 Act.

It was said at Weston Park that action would be taken to ensure that the Secretary of State would

consult the board with a view to reaching agreement on codes of ethics. Bold? Dramatic? Outlandish?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Given that the hon. Gentleman seems to be broadly in sympathy with me about the tripartite document, why is the Bill departing consciously from symmetry? If it were that the Secretary of State should consult the board with a ''view to reaching agreement'', that the Secretary of State should consult the Chief Constable with a ''view to reaching agreement'', that the Chief Constable should consult the board with a ''view to reaching agreement''—in fact, that every possible permutation was with a ''view to reaching agreement''—we could be relaxed about the Bill. However, why does such a singular bipolar requirement of ''with a view to reaching agreement'' elevate the board above the Chief Constable? Why cannot the requirement refer to ''with a view to reaching agreement'' all round, or be left as it was?

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

That is a valid point. Had I been a member of the board, there would have been Secretaries of State with whom it would not have been impossible to reach agreement. There have been those with whom it was impossible to reach agreement. Unfortunately, one of those Secretaries of State wrote the legislation that we are now trying to put together again. That, to me, is a fairly clear sign that the role of the board has to be protected in a way that it was not so protected under the 2000 Act.

Technically, of course, there is a difference between the long-term plan of the Secretary of State and the shorter-term, three-to-five year objectives of the board. Surely, it can only be right—this relates to the code of ethics, too—that the Secretary of State consults the board with a view to reaching agreement. I find it difficult to understand the concerns about the clause. I understand why some of the other clauses would cause difficulties. Perhaps it is just that hon. Members are full of remarkable energy and are trying to expend it on the very first clause.

Secretaries of State come and go—sometimes quite frequently. I have no comment to make about that. The same goes for Chief Constables. Policing boards will exist, irrespective of who is Secretary of State or Chief Constable. Those on the Policing Board will also be members of a community in the north of Ireland, warts and all. They, along with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, will be the constant factor in relation to the full development of this new dispensation in policing. I believe that the clause, as rewritten and filtered through Weston Park, gives a status and respect to the board that the 2000 Act did not.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it makes a great deal of sense, except for the fact that the members of the Policing Board will surely come and go, too. Although the board may well be a permanent fixture—we hope and trust that it will be—each member will be subject to the vagaries of appointment in the same way that the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State are. Does the hon. Gentleman's argument not fall down on that point?

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

Technically, yes, but the reality is that the continuation of the input from people in Northern Ireland who are on the board will be the constant factor. However, there will be changes; if Sinn Fein takes its place, as I expect that it will, Ulster Unionist parties will lose seats gladly given to them by Sinn Fein. Also, there will be changes after the next election, in terms of the d'Hondt system of selection. New independent faces—forgive me if I smile—will be found. What will not change is the fact that, for the first time, a cross-community group in the north of Ireland are tackling the problem of policing, and are not hamstrung by a Secretary of State or a Chief Constable. I support that position; that is what Weston Park is trying to achieve, and that is why I support the changes in the clause.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The clause refers to the relationship between the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Secretary of State. First, it would be appropriate to put on record that the board has been remarkably successful in its operations so far. That did not entirely accord with expectations in some quarters when the board was formed. The way that the board has operated is one of the few events in the past year or so that we can look back on with a degree of pleasure.

The amendments in the clause, which purports to amend the 2000 Act, try to tweak the relationship between the Policing Board and the Secretary of State. Those amendment are purely semantic and have no serious meaning. Great weight has been attached to the fact that under the clause the Secretary of State shall

''consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement''.

However, if the Secretary of State were to consult the board with no intention of obtaining agreement and paying no attention to its views, could he be said to consult it properly? I think not. The use of the term ''consult'', as opposed to ''inform'', implies that one will seriously consider the views that the person consulted will express.

As for the phrase

''with a view to obtaining its agreement''—

whose agreement will that be? The Secretary of State may consult the board with a view to obtaining agreement and if the board contumaciously refuses to agree with him, he can say that he tried to obtain its agreement. The amendments are purely semantic; they are of no practical significance.

The relationship between the board and the Secretary of State has not given rise to any such problems in the operation of the board over the course of the past year. I am not on the board, but I am not aware of any difficulty touching on the matters raised. Nor do I think that any such difficulty is likely to arise.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the changes suggested by the amendments are ''pure Patten''. Perhaps they are and perhaps they are not. The Patten report itself is not pure agreement. Patten himself did not observe the agreement and did not stick to its terms of reference. In considering constitutional matters, he paid no attention to the agreement. If there were to be a conflict between the

Patten report and the agreement, I know which I would prefer. On that point, unfortunately, I depart from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who prefers the Patten report to the agreement. It may be pure Patten, but it is also pure posturing by the SDLP.

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

It is right to look at the explanatory notes again because, for the first time, I have seen a Government stating unequivocally what the purpose of a Bill is, irrespective of disagreements about the Bill itself. Paragraph 3 of the notes says:

''The purpose of the Bill is to implement more fully the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, set out in its report 'A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland' (also known as the Patten report) which was published in September 1999''.

That is the Government's stated position. The question that arises is why did the Government not take that stated position in 2000 and why do they take it now?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Gentleman has merely reiterated the point that, in his view—and he says, in the view of the Government—the Bill and the provision are pure Patten. I do not disagree with him. However, the Patten report is not without flaws. When the Government commission a report, it is usual for them to consider it. There are not many areas in which, having commissioned a report, the Government then take the view that they are bound entirely by it and must follow it slavishly through every jot and tittle without exercising any independent thought. That is not a responsible way for any Government to behave. It was entirely reasonable for the Government to look at the Patten report with a view to considering whether it was in agreement with the provisions within it. Any reasonable person would do that, rather than adopt an attitude that the report is to be treated as holy writ. That is not the way I would approach any report.

This may be pure Patten, but it is also pure posturing. It is an attempt by the SDLP to make it seem as though some significant change will be achieved as part of the deal that it made with the Government for participating in the board. A little bit of political manoeuvring underlies the provision for various political objectives. One knows what they are and one is not entirely out of sympathy with them. However, one occasionally gets a little impatient with the cant that goes with such manoeuvring.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I must start by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton.

A moment ago, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in reference to new subsection (2) in clause 1(1), said that the change was purely semantic, and I am sure that he is right. Nevertheless, I have one question for the Minister so that her response can be helpful. New subsection (2) says:

''the Secretary of State shall consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision.''

As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible to imagine the Secretary of State consulting the board with any other view. However, I put a case to the

Minister. It is surely possible that a minority of members of the board, after being consulted by the Secretary of State about a proposed objective or revision, could argue that the Secretary of State's consultation was not entirely serious and that he had not wanted to obtain the board's agreement to objectives or revisions about which the Government felt strongly. Has the Minister taken legal advice on that? We know that all sorts of curious legal possibilities arise during the passage of legislation, and I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to that.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

My hon. Friend is embarking on interesting ground. Is he speculating or envisaging that if a minority of members of the board thought that the Secretary of State had not come to it with the clear intention of obtaining agreement but with lesser intentions, the minority might judicially review the Secretary of State for want of good faith or for want of a view to obtain an agreement?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

My hon. Friend perceives my intention absolutely clearly. I shall go a step further. What would happen if not only a minority of members took that view but, for whatever reason—we cannot always be sure about what will happen in such circumstances—a majority of members of the board believed that the Secretary of State had not properly consulted the board with a

''view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision''?

Having said that, I suspect that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to suggest that the proposed revision is purely semantic. If the change is semantic, as other Committee members have said, will the Minister explain why the Chief Constable should not also be consulted with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision?

I understand that the Secretary of State would not want to consult

''other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate''

in order to obtain their agreement because that would be excessive. However, it would be reasonable to place the Chief Constable and the board on the same level, as they are under the 2000 Act. I support my hon. Friends' amendments and I hope that the Minister will address my line of inquiry.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. With your approval, may I ask the Minister to provide the Committee, at a convenient stage for her and the Committee, with the names and provenance of the existing members of the board? It would be informative to know whether the members have a political mandate or whether they are independent.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister heard his request, but it is a matter for her, not for the Chair.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Benton.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. I do not know whether you are making the trip to Cardiff on Sunday, but I

hope that our team does well and that you will enjoy the trip, if you are able to go.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Who is our team?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We have gone immediately to the heart of the reasons why we are considering the Bill. Clause 1 appears to be relatively short and has been described as semantic. However, we cannot begin a discussion about these important issues without taking account of the wider picture in which our discussions are set.

The clause addresses the balance of the tripartite policing relationship among the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, which members of the Committee described. The clause, along with clauses 2 and 17, reflects a small but important change to the relationship. It tilts the balance slightly, but importantly, in favour of the board because it will oblige the Secretary of State, not the Chief Constable, to consult the board with a view to reaching an agreement. The Chief Constable will not be required to approach the matters as a supplicant, as was suggested.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann described the change to the current arrangements as purely semantic. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh rightly referred to the importance of the board's status in relation to the objectives that we all have, to command the support and respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland for the new policing—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. May I point out to members of the Committee that it is sometimes difficult to hear, which might be due to the acoustics in the Room? If they have to hold conversations while any hon. Member is speaking, will they please do so sotto voce?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall try to speak up a little as well, although it is early in the morning.

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) asked what would happen if a minority, or even a majority, of members of the board dissented from the view that the Secretary of State had fulfilled his obligations in line with the changes proposed in the clause. The hon. Gentleman was right to assume that any such view, whether held by individuals or the board as a whole, could be challenged by judicial review. Northern Ireland and its courts are no strangers to judicial review. The courts would decide whether the accusation that the Secretary of State had not fulfilled his or her obligation was reasonable. The courts would judge whether a reasonable person could reach the conclusion that the consultation was inadequate. I will come later to some of the other points regarding our objective and our belief about the environment within which the board, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable should work.

Both the Government and the board have a role in setting the strategic direction for policing and it is right that they should seek, wherever possible, to ensure that that direction is being framed compatibly. Neither the Secretary of State nor the board should have a veto over each other's work; they must retain responsibility

for their own objectives. The Government believe that the arrangements set out in the clause are appropriate. I was pleased to note that those arrangements were endorsed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its recent report on the Bill. It affirmed that the Government's position in relation to the role and the authority of the board was right.

There has been some debate about why we did not get it right in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. We genuinely believe that we did get it right and that we had interpreted Patten, although I know that there were long debates about the Government's interpretation of Patten in that respect. We accept that in implementing the 2000 Act we failed to win the support of the whole of civic society in Northern Ireland for the new beginning to policing. After the further discussions that took place at Weston Park we revised our position and we are considering the matters again today.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The Minister says that her Government thought at the time that the 2000 Act had got it right. May I remind her that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool still thinks that the Act got it right?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend made his point very clearly on Second Reading and the hon. Gentleman rightly draws that to my attention. However, I would not say that that was my Government, but a Government of which I was a member. We needed to reconsider the position that we had taken, so we made a commitment. The clause gives effect to the specific commitments that we made in the implementation plan.

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

I do not want to labour the point, but I have to say that there is a difference. Without getting into a discussion about which members of the Government thought it was right or wrong, the reality is that no one thought that the 2000 Act was compliant with Patten. That is why it was essentially wrong. The Government say that the aim of the clause is to implement Patten more fully and it is right that that should be done. However, the awfulness about it is that even on Report, when something could have been salvaged, the Government, through the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, were doing deals outside the Door. That made it impossible for any advance to be made and it rang the death knell for the 2000 Act. Will the Minister give an assurance that from now to the end of this parliamentary stage of the Bill, whatever happens otherwise, the Government will play with a straight bat?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The Government, of which I am a member, always play with a straight bat. I hear the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Will the Minister clear up a point that has been bedevilling the Committee all morning? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool said in his much-quoted speech on Second Reading:

''The Bill has nothing whatever to do with implementing further recommendations of the Patten report.''—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 681.]

He was wrong about that, was he not?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Let me put it this way. When I began to carry forward the Weston Park agreement, including the published implementation plan, I did so as part of a review of the new policing arrangements. The Bill is important because it allows us to consider much wider issues than those that were debated at Weston Park. Whether it is more in line with the Patten report than the previous Act needs to be considered in context: we are seeking to establish a police service in Northern Ireland that commands the respect of all members of its society.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the assurance that in dealing with this legislation and anything that might come forward from it the Government will play with a straight bat. Does the Minister think that the Government were playing with a straight bat on the Bill in another place? At the last moment they brought forward amendments at the behest of the SDLP on which they had not consulted with any other party.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We may come on to those issues later in Committee. I believe that we were playing with a straight bat then, that we are now, and that we will continue to do so. We are all working to achieve the same objectives. The Patten report was clear about the importance of the role of the Policing Board, and the changes to the amendments set out in clause 1 are in line with it. The Northern Ireland Policing Board is not the same as police authorities elsewhere. It works under significantly different pressures.

The clause allows for a slight adjustment in the balance of power towards the board—albeit, as the hon. Member for Solihull has said, a fine balance. It draws on the distinction that exists within the tripartite relationship. Although the roles of the board and the Secretary of State are not identical, their broad purpose is to set a strategic direction for policing within Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable on the other hand is responsible for the operational management of the police and for implementing the objectives set by the board and the Secretary of State.

Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 54, 55 and 5 would maintain the status quo and set at naught the Government's undertaking in the implementation plan. Amendments Nos. 3 and 53 would tilt the balance of power towards the Chief Constable in a way that is inappropriate to his role within the tripartite arrangement. The Government do not intend to foist policing objectives on the Chief Constable with no regard to his wishes or views. That is the purpose of the consultation process and I find it hard to foresee a situation in which there would be a major disagreement.

Over the past year the Policing Board has worked with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State on a number of potentially divisive and sensitive issues, and there has been a large degree of consensus and agreement. There is a distinction between consultation with the Chief Constable, whose responsibilities are operational, and consultation with the board, which

shares responsibility with the Secretary of State for setting the strategic direction of policing. It is for this reason that it would be inappropriate to put the Chief Constable on precisely the same footing as the board in relation to the Secretary of State, as these amendments suggest.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the board both in relation to the policing objectives and the text of any code of practice. The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked what would happen if agreement could not be reached? The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State retains responsibility for setting the long-term objectives. If the Secretary of State is unable to reach agreement with the Board, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State—but it is reasonable to expect that he will have tried as far as possible to reach agreement before that point is reached. As the hon. Gentleman said, that may be subject to legal tests. I would hope that that situation would not arise, but it is possible that it would.

The Government believe that amendments Nos. 1 and 6 go too far in the opposite direction. They go further than the measures envisaged by Patten and beyond what was set out in the implementation plan. They would fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State to an unhelpful degree and give the board a veto over his objectives.

As for consultation with the First Minister, amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 21, in slightly different contexts, all propose a formal statutory role for him in the formulation of policing objectives and plans. It would be inappropriate to put that on a statutory basis while policing remains reserved to Westminster and is therefore the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

There is, of course, provision under sections 24 and 27 of the 2000 Act for the Secretary of State to consult

''such other persons as he thinks appropriate''

on either his long-term policing objectives or the contents of a code of practice. When they touch on matters that are within the transferred or devolved area, we would naturally expect to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Similarly, as devolution of policing and justice becomes closer, we anticipate an increasing level of consultation with the devolved Administration that would naturally follow.

Finally, when responsibility for policing is devolved, responsibility for setting the long-term objectives would rest with the responsible Minister within the Northern Ireland Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh rightly drew attention to the status and the respect that the board must command in its role, which is different from the way in which the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable have to command respect.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I took my cue from the Minister's mention of ''board''. I was unsuccessful earlier when I made a point of order and was properly corrected by you, Mr. Benton. I shall try again and ask the hon. Lady if she will be good enough, possibly during this afternoon's sitting, to equip the Committee with the names and the provenance of the members of the board and say whether they will be independent or

elected members of a party. I do not insist that such information is provided this morning.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I have no problem in giving the names. In fact, such information has just been passed to me. I shall make sure that they are presented in an easily accessible form and are in the public domain. I was about to refer to the representative nature of the board membership. It may be of interest to members of the Committee to have such information.

For the moment, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to specify the First Minister as one of the statutory consultees. The hon. Member for Solihull argued that arrangements in England and Wales have worked well for years. In Northern Ireland, we are dealing with a new set of arrangements. The hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to an early start and I appreciate his helpful and pragmatic approach. However, early starts do not suit me.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Nor me.

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

I wish to make a point before the Minister finishes her speech. The amendment that refers to the First Minister is meant to apply to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend is right. I apologise for that oversight.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

For which there is no basis in the agreement.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall ensure that future references take that point into account.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am struggling to find out how my being helpful and pragmatic was linked to early starts; perhaps I become more grumpy as the day goes on. Such action was not meant to be linked with early starts because I, like the Minister, object thoroughly to having to get up at this time in the morning. Perhaps I should be more grumpy when I arrive; then people may not want to come here so early.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I was, somewhat flippantly, drawing my comments to a conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh talked about the pleasant walk across Westminster bridge and the sight of the Palace of Westminster in the early morning sun—[Interruption.]—or rain. I took the pragmatic and helpful approach of the hon. Member for Spelthorne to be the effect of an early start.

I ask the hon. Members who tabled the amendments not to press them to a Division, as the Government do not believe that they are appropriate, and will resist amendment No. 51 if it is not withdrawn.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

My colleagues and I would like to return to the matters now under discussion on Report. I believe that I am right in saying—although I am open to guidance—that if we pressed the amendment to a Division and were unsuccessful, it might prejudice a return to those subjects on Report. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. When I arrived this morning and went through the amendments, looking at some of those in my name, I found that one of the lines mentioned was not what I expected. I noted that I has been working from a version of the Bill as amended on Report in the other place; that was owing to my inefficiency. I then went to the Table, got the other version of the document, and discovered that my first group of amendments did, in fact, relate correctly to that Bill. I have no complaints about that. When I came to amendment No. 8 to clause 2, I expected to be able to open the Bill that I had just picked up and find the reference listed correctly. Unfortunately, when you call amendment No. 8, you will find that the line reference is to the other Bill, Mr. Benton. I have not had the chance to go through all the other amendments, but there is a degree of confusion in the listing and details of the blue Notice Paper. I agree that I caused in the first place, but it seems that some of my mistakes have been sorted and some have not.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to his copy of the blue Notice Paper, but we now have to work from the white amendment paper. That is where the error has occurred. There is nothing improper about the references; it is just that he has referred to the wrong copy of the document.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful for that, Mr. Benton. My good humour is wearing off, and my reasonableness is getting less as the day goes by, but I shall try not to get confused again.Clause 2 Board's policing objectives

Clause 2 - Board's policing objectives

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out '''but''' and insert '''or''.'

Clause 2 will alter section 25(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which says:

''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate, or to other matters''—

and this is the bit that the Government seek to delete:

''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''

I have no doubt that in due course the Minister will tell us why it is necessary to delete that phrase. I do not want to comment on that yet; I would rather hear the Minister's justification for it. I may then wish to comment on the reasons that she gives. For the moment, however, I will leave that question, because it is a matter for a stand part debate.

I am concerned about the issue, and I tabled the amendment because, as I said in passing during the debate on clause 1, I have constitutional objections to

giving Secretaries of State a free hand. My amendment would remove more words than the Government would wish to see removed; it would remove ''or to other matters'', so that subsection (2) would read:

''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate''.

If I could understand that I would probably agree with it. However, I am not sure whether I could get my mind round that; it is either too early or too late in the day. I always wonder about a Bill that says that something may happen and certain things may be done. I have a suspicious mind, and I want to know why, having once said, ''The Government may do this,'' someone can tag on ''or anything else'' as the fancy takes them? That is exactly what the words ''or to other matters'' mean in this context. Why is it necessary to say, ''You may consider this,'' and then add ''or anything else''? That is a strange way to legislate; it owes more to the dictatorial nature of the Government, to which I objected during the debate on the programme motion.

What are the other matters? What have the Government got hidden behind the covers of the file? What are they up to that they do not want to list? If they are not ashamed of what the other matters might be, let them include them in the Bill so that we can know what may be considered. I am always nervous when I see that the Secretary of State may include anything else that he feels like including. That is not democratic Government, it does not provide accountability to Parliament and I do not believe that such wording should be included in any legislation.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We have clarified the wording and I am pleased that we have done so, because now we can debate the issue. We will not support the amendment because it would restrict the board's ability to set its policing objectives in line with the matters covered by the Secretary of State's long-term objectives under section 24 of the 2000 Act. As the Secretary of State's objectives are intended to be very high-level, it would seem inappropriate to fetter the board's independence as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Under the clause, the board would be obliged to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. However, the board has not simply kept its own policies and objectives consistent with those of the Secretary of State; it has already established itself as a dedicated and professional organisation with the capacity to operate on a genuinely cross-community basis and in a mature and sensible manner. We believe that in order for the board to provide for full accountability for policing in Northern Ireland, it is right that it should have sufficient latitude to set its own objectives without being constrained by the Secretary of State or by some future devolved Minister of Justice. That would be underpinned by the requirement to consult and seek to achieve agreement.

The change proposed in the Bill is important in recognising the board's independence. That goes back to the debate on clause 1 and the status of the board. I was pleased to see that that change was endorsed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The

amendment would limit the board's ability to develop its work, so it is unnecessary.

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

I welcome the change to the clause. It ensures that the Policing Board must take account of the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives in framing its own, rather than just incorporate decisions made by the Secretary of State. The essential difference is that Patten recommended strongly that the Secretary of State set long-term objectives and principles and the board set objectives and priorities for policing over a three to five-year period. It is only right that the board should be able to do that without being required to take those objectives and priorities from a set of principles drawn up a Secretary of State, which far outruns the writ for the period that they have to cover.

At Weston Park, the Government agreed to amend the Act so that the Northern Ireland Policing Board would take account of the Secretary of State's objectives when setting its own. I fully agree with that because it gives the board greater autonomy. I make no apologies for seeking greater autonomy for the board with regard to that matter and many others. Such a provision also secures compliance with Patten, who, as I said, clearly recommended that the board should set its objectives and priorities for policing over a three to five-year period, taking account of any longer-term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State.

I do not anticipate great divergence from objectives or principles as the years proceed, but I can foresee circumstances in which matters that had been addressed in the long term might need adjustment by the board according to its three to five-year term for planning and objectives, requiring a divergence from the long-term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State. That may never happen, but in the interests of the status, and, indeed, the potency of the board, it should have the power to carry out its Patten remit in the manner stated in the clause, which I welcome.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I apologise to the Minister in advance if she has already covered the point that I am about to raise. If she has, I am sure that she will interrupt me and I shall sit down. Section 25(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has alluded, states:

''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate, or to other matters, but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''

As I understand it, the Minister wants to amend the section so as to delete the words from ''but'' to the end. I ask myself the question that perhaps the Minister would address: let us suppose that the members of the board—whose names I look forward to seeing later today—following the proceedings of the Committee, see that they are no longer required to pursue objectives consistent with those under section 24 of the 2000 Act.

Is there a possibility that the Secretary of State, who has a duty to consider long-term objectives, and the board, which has a duty to consider objectives, may diverge in the objectives that each seeks to reach? If so,

I welcome the Minister's view. It seems possible that by deleting the words from section 25(2) as she seeks to do, she could introduce, perhaps unwittingly, a divergence between the objectives, which could damage the stability of policing in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy rose—

Mr. Wilshire rose—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene before I have opened my mouth, or was he trying to catch the Chairman's eye?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was conscious that because I moved the amendment, I would bring things to a conclusion if I spoke, so I wanted to let the Minister say what she wanted first.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That is proper. I call the Minister.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I seek the leave of the Committee to respond to the valid question asked by the hon. Member for Wycombe. He was right to use the terms that he did to describe what we have done. The value of the change that we are proposing is the recognition of the board's independence. We do not expect that that would mean wholesale changes on the ground. Both the Secretary of State and the board will continue to have the interests of policing in Northern Ireland at their hearts, and both will have an interest in determining a sensible direction to achieve that. The Secretary of State's objectives are aimed at the longer term, while the board's objectives are more medium term—over three to five years. In reality, the objectives will continue to be consistent with each other, and if that is the case, so much the better. It is important for that to happen because both the Secretary of State and the board conclude that that arrangement is more appropriate than making one subservient to the other by statute. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Is the Minister saying that she would be happy for the objectives of the Secretary of State and the board to diverge somewhat? If so, to what extent?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I would not envisage divergence. However, it is possible to contemplate a situation in which the board considers its short and medium-term role and responsibility and, given its responsibilities for managing budgets and the estate of the Police Service, it might determine objectives that it wishes to discuss with the Secretary of State because they might be perceived to diverge. That is all underpinned by the need to achieve agreement between the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite arrangement—in the interests of good policing in Northern Ireland, which we discussed in our earlier debate.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have worked for a long time on the Texas principle of politics: if one tables sufficient amendments or asks sufficient questions, oil will pop out of one of the holes that has been drilled. On this occasion, something has emerged that I had not anticipated when I tabled the amendment: I have heard things that give rise to serious worries. The hon. Member for Newry and South Armagh said that the

provision is what Patten was all about. I was not very keen on that to start with, and I am even less keen on it if this provision is what will happen.

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

After all these years of friendship with the hon. Gentleman, I had hoped that he might get the name of my constituency right sometimes.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do try, but I get confused because the name keeps changing. The hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, although I would not want to bore the Committee with some of the things that we get up to on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. I shall do my level best, and I consider myself told off; it will not be the last time that I get told off during the Committee. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

When the Minister responded to what I said about my amendment after I said that I would be interested to hear why the Government wanted to delete the words, I received a reply about both my amendment and the clause. Would it be appropriate, therefore, to deal with such matters now and not have a stand part debate, or would you prefer the two issues to be debated separately, Mr. Benton?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

It might be as well to restrict ourselves to the amendment for the time being. As things stand, I am not disposed to take same the action as I did on clause 1. This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, but if at the end of the debate on the amendment I consider that the clause has been fully discussed, we shall forgo a separate discussion on it. We shall see what happens as we approach the clause stand part debate.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That advice is very helpful, Mr. Benton—but it leaves the choice with me. I will opt to comment only on my amendment, concerning the words ''or to other matters''. My principle of drilling holes to produce something worth debating is designed to find out the Government's intentions in clause 2, and if we can have a separate discussion on that, it will not become confused with my amendment.

The Minister did not give a clear explanation why the phrase ''or to other matters'' was relevant. The argument was about giving the board more power, but that is not the same issue to which I referred. I was talking about giving the Secretary of State, the board or anyone else the power to do something, and then tagging words to the effect of ''or it can do what it likes''; the other issues that I want to consider can be taken in conjunction with the clause. The hon. Lady heard what I said, but declined to give me a satisfactory explanation. That comes as no surprise, but as I got up early and am in a reasonable mood, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

What concerned me about the Minister's sentiments in the previous debate was that we have now reached the point at which the board will have established itself and could realistically be

allowed to do more. That raises two questions. The board may be good and developing well, but it is possible that in the future the whole thing could get out of hand, but by then it will be able to do what it wants if clause 2 remains in the Bill.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. At some stage, the board may not be not as good as the previous board. However, the Secretary of State, too, may not be as good as previous Secretaries of State. Surely there are sufficient checks and balances in the Bill to ensure that in either of those cases, the policing objectives would be protected. The hon. Gentleman should consider that when he talks about a board deteriorating. It is not necessarily the case that all Secretaries of State show great wisdom when they arrive.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Absolutely not. Otherwise, however, for once I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Under clause 2 the Secretary of State will lay down long-term objectives that must be followed by the board. However, the Government are seeking our agreement that the board need not follow the long-term objectives of the Secretary of State. The clause will remove the words:

''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''

Are we really saying that a United Kingdom Minister will set the overall objectives for policing part of the state, but that those objectives can then be disregarded? If so, why does the Surrey police authority not have the same power to disregard the objectives of the Home Secretary? I do not know why we in the United Kingdom should allow a police authority, or a board—call it what you like—in one part of the kingdom to overrule the Secretary of State of the duly elected Government of this country, when an authority in another part of the kingdom cannot. In a United Kingdom, that would be a dangerous route to go down.

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

I hoped for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was asking a rhetorical question—but he makes a valid point. In the immortal words of a former leader of his party, we are not the same as Finchley. What is happening to policing in Northern Ireland is not the same as what is happening in England and Wales, for one reason: there has been broad agreement that responsibility for policing and justice will, in effect, be devolved at some point to the new Administration in Northern Ireland. As a result, it is almost inevitable that legislation will be written with one eye on that eventuality. That is why Northern Ireland is different, and why it is necessary to ensure that the board has the status to make decisions that reflect the needs of Northern Ireland, rather than insisting on the technicalities that the hon. Gentleman mentions concerning the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It grieves me to have to disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman twice in one debate, but he is wrong. I accept his argument that if there is a devolved arrangement within the United Kingdom, it is perfectly proper to devolve whatever Parliament decides to devolve. However, if there were to be devolution to England—I would love to debate

that, but I have little doubt that you would stop me very rapidly if I did, Mr. Benton—and there were a debate about devolving justice to an English Parliament, I do not believe that the decisions on the objectives to be considered in England would be devolved to the Surrey police authority. They would be devolved to a Home Secretary or other Justice Minister in the Parliament of England.

The hon. Gentleman's argument is that because we are dealing with a devolved jurisdiction, the power should be devolved to the Policing Board. I do not think so. If there is to be a devolved arrangement that includes a Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—I would have profound reservations about that, but it is a matter for an entirely separate debate—power should be devolved to the Justice Minister, who would set the objectives in the place of the Secretary of State. In that case, my argument about the wrongness of the clause would still stand, because the clause would allow the board to ignore the objectives of the Justice Minister. The Minister shakes her head. I will willingly give way if she wants to tell me why I am wrong; I am getting used to that this morning.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The clause requires the board to ''take account of'' those objectives, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads through to the end.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That takes us on to the issue of what ''take account of'' means. I am concerned that we are deleting the words

''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives''.

Whether we take account of something elsewhere is not the same as being ''consistent with''. The clause says that the objectives of the board, whether it is answerable to a Secretary of State in Whitehall or a Justice Minister in Stormont, will no longer have to be consistent with those of the Government of the country. That strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

I listened to what the Minister said earlier, which is why I queried whether she was replying on the subject of the amendment or the clause, and I believe that she has made a confused argument about the objectives. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh raised the correct issue in the previous debate: the clash between objectives and priorities. I hope that the Minister is saying that the board will have more freedom and flexibility to choose between the overriding priorities and principles in order to achieve the overarching long-term objectives of policing in Northern Ireland, because the members of the board are local people with the greatest knowledge, and they will know what to prioritise.

If that is the argument, I agree with it. It is right that a Government in the centre should set the objectives. The hon. Gentleman and I will never agree on the future of the United Kingdom.

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

We may agree about the future of Ireland, though.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is a matter that we have discussed at great length on many occasions and it is

not appropriate for Committee. We will see whether we can strike an agreement on Northern Ireland versus the Republic at lunchtime.

The United Kingdom is a sovereign state, and as such its overall policing objectives should be a unitary matter: they need to be set whether they be for Surrey, for parts of Scotland, for Wales or for Northern Ireland. I am opposed to the notion that there is a police board authority in part of the United Kingdom that is entitled to disregard the long-term objectives of the Government of the day. That is fundamentally wrong.

It undermines the nature of a sovereign state to have different ways of policing in different parts of the country. There may be different priorities, different techniques and different responses to different circumstances, but not an ability to disregard the long-term objectives of the Government of the day. That is wrong.

Is that what the Government are trying to achieve? The Minister has shaken her head, and I hope to show that that is not the approach. Are the Government saying that, now that the board has established itself and shown itself to be doing a good job of work, acting responsibly in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, we must give it more flexibility, in the same way that the Surrey police authority has the flexibility to say that the situation in Surrey is not the same as in Manchester, and therefore their priorities will be different. If that is the case, the Government have my support. However, that is not what the clause provides.

If the clause were to say that in future the Policing Board will be freer to select and prioritise the matters on which it will focus, I would be happy to support it. I am not happy to support a clause that says that a police board in part of the United Kingdom can disregard the long-term objectives of the Government.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The difficulty is that the original section 25 of the 2000 Act had amendments made to it that changed things slightly. There is a considerable underlying problem in working out the exact relationship between the Secretary of State and his successor in the event of devolution and the Policing Board.

There are problems in treating the Patten report as holy writ. If we read the report, we get little guidance on this matter. It might be helpful to hon. Members to reconsider what the report said. Paragraph 6.4 reads:

''We believe that the complicated provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 as to the respective roles of the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable in setting objectives, performance targets and policy plans, can and should be greatly simplified. In essence we believe that the Secretary of State (or successor after responsibility for policing is devolved) should be able to set long-term governmental objectives or principles; the Policing Board should set medium-term objectives and priorities; and the police should develop the short-term tactical plans for delivering those objectives.''

Paragraph 6.5 says:

''Accordingly we recommend that the Policing Board should set objectives and priorities for policing over a 3 to 5 year period, taking account of any longer term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State or successor. It should then be responsible for adopting a 3 to 5 year strategy, prepared by the Chief Constable

through a process of discussion with the Board, which should reflect the objectives and priorities set by the Board.''

That recommendation begins with the word ''accordingly''. It purports to encapsulate paragraph 6.4, which contains a series of bold propositions—for example, that the Secretary of State should ''set long-term objectives'' and that

''the Policing Board should set medium-term objectives''.

The problem arises about what should be the precise relationship between long and medium-term objectives. Paragraph 6.4 implies nothing; it says that the Secretary of State should set the long-term objectives. If one is to follow Patten's holy writ, we must ensure that the legislation is framed in such a way that the Secretary of State or his successor should set the long-term objectives. Those should not be set by anyone else, nor should they be subverted by anyone else.

We come to crux of the problem. How is one to be consistent with Patten in protecting the role of the Secretary of State and his successors with regard to long-term objectives while still allowing the Policing Board the power to set the medium-term objectives? In paragraph 6.5 the words ''taking account'' are used, but if those words are to be applied properly in the light of what is said at paragraph 6.4, medium-term plans should incorporate and be consistent with the proposals that it contains. That may happen in practice under the revised wording and, if it does, it would be consistent with the letter, and perhaps the spirit, of Patten.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The right hon. Gentleman is drawing conclusions from Patten and arguing immaculately, as far as I can tell. However, would he not accept that Patten was written, informed—even inspired—as a projection of what policing in Northern Ireland might look like on the far side of a completed peace process? Would he agree with me that we are not there?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that his comments bear much on the argument about which he was so complimentary. I am not sure that I can recover the thread that I had before the intervention—that is one of the perils of this sort of debate.

Patten is clear that long-term objectives are a matter for the Secretary of State, or his successor in the event of devolution. To be consistent with Patten one must ensure that the Secretary of State or his successor sets long-term objectives, that those are observed and that they are not subverted by short or medium-term measures adopted either by the Chief Constable or the Policing Board. The question is, ''What is the best formula?'' It is true that paragraph 6.5 uses the words ''take account'', but those must be read in the light of paragraph 6.4. In the light of paragraph 6.4, the terminology that is used in the 2000 Act can be fairly described as an honest, honourable attempt to give effect to all of the provisions in Patten.

The amendment would open up precisely the danger that has been adverted by those on the Opposition Benches. The original legislation used the

words ''be consistent with'', and if it is amended, those who subsequently interpret the legislation will say that by deliberately striking out ''consistent'' and producing a lower standard, Parliament intended to create a situation in which there was no need to be consistent with long-term objectives. Consequently, although the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his party might have thought that the amendment was designed to be more consistent with Patten, it will not achieve that. The original terminology was closer to Patten than the terminology that we will have. There is a world of difference between simply following something formally and thinking a matter through.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

Is the answer not that argued by the right hon. Gentleman about the first group of amendments? He said that ''consult'' meant genuine, bona fide consultation. He then said that inserting the words

''consult with a view to obtaining its agreement''

was only a semantic difference. The same applies to ''take account'', which means to take account in a genuine, bona fide way. That is not exactly equivalent to taking account so that one is absolutely consistent, but the phrase has a great deal of substance.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I take the serious point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we had used the term ''take account'' from the outset, there would be a strong argument in the terms that he used. My worry is that removing ''consistent'' from legislation and inserting other terminology is likely to be interpreted by future members of the Policing Board, and even the courts, as indicative of Parliament's deliberate intention to move away from the element of consistency. That opens up rather dangerous territory. The argument shows that although some distinctions may be semantic, there might be consequences—perhaps unintentional consequences—of the semantic games that people are playing. That is why several of the Bill's provisions are ill advised because they will get us into the danger to which I referred.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is quite knowledgeable about the semantics of all this, but will he contribute to the knowledge of the rest of us and tell us what he, as a lawyer, sees as the substantive difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''? I do not want to prolong the debate on semantics but as he is seeing everything through semantic-tinted glasses, I would have thought that he would oblige us with definitions.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am not quite sure when ''having regard to'' entered our discussions. We are on a spectrum or continuum with regard to the weight attached to these matters, which is what my point relates to. We must examine the issue against the background of the clear statement in paragraph 6.4 of the Patten report, which is that

''the Secretary of State . . . should be able to set long-term governmental objectives or principles''.

In order to be consistent with Patten, the legislation must be framed so that the Secretary of State—no one

else—sets long-term objectives, and other people must operate in the context of those objectives.

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

I do not want to be a pest, but it would be a great help to many members of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would address the substantive legislative or legal difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to'' in terms of semantics.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The distinction that I am drawing is framed as to be consistent with the objective in the phrases that are being deleted from section 25 of the 2000 Act. I am worried because the terms will disappear under the Bill, and that disappearance could undermine paragraph 6.4. That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on it for a moment.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

When I asked the Minister about the implication of the removal of the words

''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section'',

to which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann referred, I received an interesting answer. However, I am worried about it because the hon. Lady said that there was a clear difference between long-term and medium-term objectives in policing. She suspected that there would not be a divergence of the sort that I described, but I am not entirely sure whether her answer cleared up the worries raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Inevitably in such matters, there will be real debate about long-term objectives and what the 2000 Act calls objectives, but which are medium-term objectives. One person's view of a long-term objective can be different from the view of another person. The view of the Secretary of State may not be the same as that of all members of the board or some members of it. I am worried about the deletion of the words

''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section'',

because their removal will introduce a new element of uncertainty.

I do not for a moment want to go back over previous debates, because you would rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Benton, but the theme that emerged in relation to the previous clause is that elements of uncertainty are being introduced. I do not want to risk the ire of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench by suggesting that I want to force the matter to a Division, but genuine elements of uncertainty are being introduced that the Minister has not fully addressed.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

This has been a useful discussion about the intention of clause 2. We must consider the changes within the overall context of the responsibilities that weigh upon the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite relationship that we have discussed. The board's responsibilities are that it should secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland and ensure that they are efficient and effective.

The 2000 Act describes the responsibilities of the police. This is one of those occasions when the Minister's reply to such a thoughtful and probing debate becomes important. As I said earlier, it is our expectation that, in reality, the objectives that are worked through by the Policing Board will continue to be consistent with the objectives developed by the Secretary of State or a justice Minister. There is such an imperative on each of the three partners within the tripartite relationship to ensure that police in Northern Ireland are efficient, effective and carry through their responsibilities.

The hon. Member for Wycombe overstated what I said. I did not say that there was a clear difference, although there are differences between the responsibilities and development of long-term, as opposed to medium-term, policies and objectives. However, it is important that the board's development of policies and practices, within the overall framework of those responsibilities, is consistent with those of a justice Minister or a Secretary of State because both agree that that should be the case, rather than because the statute requires it to be so.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made a strong argument about the interpretation of the Patten report. It remains a fact that the board would be required to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North rightly said, that is a significant responsibility bearing down on the board in the development of its objectives. On that basis, we believe that the change that we are making is appropriate. It properly enhances the status of the board and allows it to operate with greater flexibility, but within the constraints appropriate to the circumstances that we envisage in Northern Ireland.

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

I shall try again for the last time. Will the Minister help some of us out by giving her understanding of the difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We have often discussed ''taking account of'' and the nuances of that and other phrases when debating legislation. There is a significant and important difference between taking account of and being consistent with. The latter implies a requirement for the objectives that we are discussing to be much more closely in line with, and constrained by, the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. One would read into ''take account of'' that the board, in developing its objectives, must not only consult on but have in mind the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives.

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

That is kind of the Minister, but it is the distinction between taking account of and having regard to that I am interested in, not taking account of and being consistent with.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am obviously making heavy work of this. It is true that, in law, there is no distinction between the two phrases. However, it is important for the interpretation of the evolving development of policing in Northern Ireland that we take account of—I did not mean to use that phrase—how we hope that

the accountability and management of policing will develop. The changes that we propose do not go so far as to justify the concerns expressed by Committee members, and reflect the changing responsibility that we seek to place on the board in enhancing its position and role in Northern Ireland.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

May I endeavour to help the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh? ''Consistent with'' is a heavier discipline than ''taking account of''. I could take something into account and partially disregard it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 - Chief Constable's functions

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The Chief Constable is asked, under the clause, to have regard to the policing plan in discharging his functions. It seems that the primary author of the policing plan is the board. In subsection (3), the Chief Constable is asked to have regard to any code of practice under section 27.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Clause 17 - Chief Constable's functions

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I wish to let members of the Committee know that I have placed on the Table near the entrance to the Room the information about the Policing Board that was requested this morning.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, the Committee will note the hon. Lady's comment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. If my memory serves me correctly, you prefer a request to remove jackets before we actually do it. Is it in order to do so?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

While I am in the Chair, members may take it as read that they have permission to remove their jackets. I would not interfere with their creature comforts.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I had not made much headway before this morning's sitting ended. I thank the Minister for kindly and so promptly providing the list of the board members. It is useful, and it helps us realise, when we are talking about the board, that real people discharge its difficult function. We wish them well in their work.

As the morning sitting ended, I was speaking to clause 17 stand part, there being no tabled amendments. I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the wording of the 2000 Act. I am sorry that it does not have a more felicitous title. I suppose that I could call it the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but it is more convenient to call it the 2000 Act.

Section 33 of the 2000 Act is very clear. In fact, it is an admirable piece of draftsmanship. It states:

''The police shall be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable.''

That is a fairly straightforward statement. The section then states:

''In discharging his functions, the Chief Constable shall have regard to—

(a) the policing plan; and

(b) any code of practice under section 27.''

That seems clear, as well.

However, along comes the Bill, and section 33 is subtly—or perhaps not—rewritten. It is restated that the two priorities of the Chief Constable are the

policing plan and any section 27 code of practice, but instead of just saying that he shall have regard to both, it goes on to state:

''The duty under subsection (3) applies only so far as consistent with the duty under subsection (2).''

In effect, that means that the policing plan is to have priority if there is any variation between the policing plan and the code of practice. The 2000 Act gave the Chief Constable two considerations to bear in mind, and the Bill prioritises them.

It may be thought that that is not a point of great significance, but perhaps we should consider who brings into being, on the one hand, the policing plan and, on the other, the code of practice. The code of practice is brought into being by the Secretary of State; the policing plan is brought into existence by the board. The code of practice—author, the Secretary of State—is now subordinated to the policing plan—author, the board. That is another shift in the tripartite balance between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. Opposition Members do not like that shift. We were happy with the previous equilibrium.

I dare say the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will say that I am speaking to the purposes that he wishes to see fulfilled. He is an honest man in that regard, and I dare say that he will follow me and say exactly that. I believe that he would subscribe to the view—he can speak for himself; I do not speak for him—that he wants a more elevated role for the board and that members of the nationalist persuasion in Northern Ireland want a diminished role for the Secretary of State. I understand that and I disagree with it.

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

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and thank you for the leniency with regard to jackets. It was just a pity that it did not apply to ties.

I spent some time prior to the lunch break trying to establish the difference in legal terms between ''take account of'' and ''have regard to''. I was working on the assumption that, with the legal expertise that surrounded me, there would be a clear answer that I, as a lay person, should have seen long ago. I still await that. I have no doubt that the Minister will try to put the matter right when she replies.

I believe that that is important because, in relation to the clause, the revised implementation plan—in other words, that which stemmed from Weston Park—states on page 9:

''The Government intends, after the planned review, to amend the Act to provide that the Chief Constable shall take account of the policing plan.''

The phrase ''take account'' has been used in other parts of the Bill, but the clause contains the term ''have regard to''.

I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said about the juxtaposition—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

With your permission, Mr. Gale, I should clarify that I do not enjoy the title ''right

honourable''. I am content to be the hon. Member for Solihull.

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

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am flattered.

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

Like me, the hon. Gentleman seems to be promotion-proof.

Part of the problem in relation to the words is the actual functions. The hon. Gentleman rightly looked at the juxtaposition of words in clause 17 and section 33 of the 2000 Act. It is quite clever; it may be a little clever by half. However, again I await clarification. Clause 17(2) states:

''The Chief Constable shall have regard to the policing plan in discharging his functions.''

Section 33 provides:

''In discharging his functions, the Chief Constable shall have regard to . . . the policing plan''.

That is fairly clear. The difference arises in relation to the code of practice. However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Solihull, because clause 1 recognises that the code of practice would be agreed between the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State and the Policing Board. Therein lies a difference. I have no great axe to grind on the clause, but in the interests of clarity I would like to seek advice from the Minister as to what the substantive difference is between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to'' especially as it is already a matter of some contention, and we are only on the third clause. I wait for that clarification. I am very interested to hear it, and I look forward to hearing its implications, especially in relation to clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I, too, would like some elucidation from the Minister, though she will perhaps be relieved to know that the clarification that I seek does not apply to the phrases ''taking account of'' or ''having regard to''. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has already received an explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I wish the Minister success where they so far have apparently failed. The elucidation that I seek applies to subsection (4) of clause 17, which reads:

''The duty under subsection (3) applies only so far as consistent with the duty under subsection (2).''

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull has already explained cogently the difference between the policing plan and the code or practice, and their origins. Perhaps the Minister could describe ways in which the code and the policing plan might be inconsistent. In subsection (4), a greater weight is placed on subsections (2) and (3). It may be that the Minister is anticipating some inconsistency, and it would be helpful if the Committee could learn what that is.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to taking off ties, I looked at his tie, and I thought that it was rather nice. I did not see why he should be worried about it. Then I realised what he really meant, and I can only say that he should count himself lucky that he did not sit on the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

That took 36 sittings, and so he would have had to suffer another 34. I can only say that my current tie is the most modest, and that they get worse.

Section 33 is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull says, quite sensible. My hon. Friend uses language in his usual modest way that is meant to chide the Government gently. I prefer somewhat more robust language. I think that the change is dreadful. We are now saying that the Secretary of State shall no longer be the person who determines such matters. If there is a disagreement between the Secretary of State and the board, it is the board's view that prevails. We discussed something along those lines this morning, so I shall not repeat all that I said.

During an earlier debate, the Minister said that it was important that the board should not be hamstrung by the Secretary of State. I think that I have got that right. My view is, ''Oh yes, it should.'' Most certainly it should. In a sovereign state, in terms of policing, if there is a disagreement between a local committee—which is what the board is, in effect—and the Government, the Government's view should prevail. The clause that they want us to support would fundamentally undermine that. In future, in England, the Home Secretary will prevail in matters of dispute between himself and a police authority whereas in Northern Ireland, it will be the exact opposite.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

I shall gently chide the hon. Gentleman. He is proceeding on a faulty premise. Section 33 does not say that a code or the policing plan will prevail. It does not say which will prevail. That is the purpose of the clause—to make it clear that one, rather than the other, will prevail.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. Perhaps I have misunderstood section 33. Let me try to explain how I construe it. Section 33(2) of the 2000 Act states:

''In discharging his functions the Chief Constable shall have regard to the policing plan and any code of practice under Section 27.''

Section 33 says that the Chief Constable shall have regard to both but the Bill says that where there is a dispute, the policing plan shall prevail. The distinction is that the policing plan is drawn up by the board and the section 27 code of practice is issued by the Secretary of State.

My understanding of the section and of the Bill is therefore diametrically opposed to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The status quo is that the Chief Constable shall have regard to what the Secretary of State says. If we approve the clause, in future the Chief Constable shall have regard to the board.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

Maybe I can help. Perhaps I did not explain myself fully. The clause says that the Chief Constable shall have regard to both. It does not explain what will happen where there is a difference between the two. One points to the Chief Constable and the other points another way. The Bill resolves that particular issue. I suspect that the possibility of a clash—rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman—will be very slight, given the way in which both are formulated in the 2000 Act.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. If, on Report, he came up with an amendment to clear up this confusion, which stated that if there were a dispute the view of the Secretary of State should prevail, I would be inclined to vote with him. However, I suspect that I shall have to wait an extremely long time before he tables something to that effect.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Is not the key point that the 2000 Act ultimately leaves discretion in the hands of the Chief Constable and that this proposal aims, once again—for the third time in Committee—to tip power in the direction of the board?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. I could not have put it better. The moderation and thoughtfulness of my hon. Friends is enormously helpful. As far as I can see, unless we are in the business of saying that we want to do more by making concessions to one side in this dispute, what is wrong with the existing arrangement?

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

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman clarified what he means by ''one side''. It is rather ambiguous in the context in which he uses it. I should like to hear his view on that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I suspect that if I were to expand on my views on Sinn Fein-IRA, they would be fascinating. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows them only too well. By responding in that way, he knows precisely what I mean. The Bill is an attempt to make further concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I suggest that the hon. Member might have missed the real advice. It is a question of what would be contained in a code of practice. A code of practice is unlikely to contain policy matters, but is likely to relate to how a function should be discharged in terms of ethical standards, not in terms of best practice or policing. Is not the real concern here that the policing plan will contain matters of policy and that those policies, by virtue of the clause, will override the ethical considerations that may be in the code of practice?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point very well and I agree with him. We have here another variation on the debate that we had this morning on who should set objectives and who should settle priorities. During our debate this morning, it was suggested that the Government of the sovereign state should settle the overarching objectives and that local committees should decide their priorities and tactics within those objectives. If the clause did that, I suppose that I would be prepared to go along with it, but it seems to me that when there is a dispute between the overarching policing plan and the overall priorities and the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, it is the wrong way round.

I have said enough and have made my views clear. I have tried to explain what I object to. The clause goes to the heart of my disagreement with the Bill.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I have never worked with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but I spent seven and a half years working with the Royal Ulster Constabulary at every level from constable to Chief Constable. I was involved in the Sheehy inquiry and a

number of other investigations into the way in which the RUC used to work. Things have moved on and changed, but it was clear that the tripartite agreement between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the predecessor of the Policing Board worked well and was sensitively balanced in extremely difficult times.

My worry is not limited to the clause. The situation is not as calm and placid as some might think, and society in Northern Ireland is not yet ready for the balance to be shifted. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that the relationship has been seen to be working well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, in whose constituency I have spent many tense months, said that the relationship is working well. If it is working well and the lid is being kept on a difficult situation, why alter it? Do not the words

''the Chief Constable's duty to have regard to the code of practice applies only so far as consistent with his duty to have regard to the policing plan''

give priority to the Policing Board and degrade the position of both the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable? I oppose that because I believe that it is wrong. It works directly against any form of further cohesive action in Northern Ireland and the spread of peace which we have seen, with the institution of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, improving day by day. I do not believe that that is correct and I do not believe that we are yet ready for it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

May I add my words of welcome, Mr. Gale, to those that have already been expressed by hon. Members?

I shall try to lay to rest the issue of ''take account of'' versus ''have regard to''. I am advised unequivocally that in law there is no difference between the two phrases. However, hon. Members have asked why we did not use the words ''take account of'' at this point in the Bill when the 1989 Act uses the words ''have regard to''.

The discussions that informed the Government's commitment in the implementation plan following Weston Park focused on a desire to ensure that in complying with his duty, the Chief Constable should take greater account of the board's policing plan than the Secretary of State's code of practice. The hon. Gentlemen are right in discerning that that is the intention behind the clause.

I should like to correct the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who suggested that the code of practice would be agreed between the board and the Secretary of State. Codes of practice remain the Secretary of State's responsibility, and it is his responsibility to produce any such code having consulted the required parties. As we consider that ''take account of'' and ''have regard to'' have the same meaning, we took the view that it would not be appropriate to waste parliamentary time amending the 2000 Act to no good effect, which is why we are stuck with the original wording.

The hon. Gentlemen are right that the clause is consequential on the changes that we have just been

discussing. In contributing to the debate, they have made their distaste clear for the slight adjustment to the tripartite relationship between the Chief Constable, the board and the Secretary of State or, where policing is devolved, a Minister of Justice—or whatever they will be called. That is one of the Bill's fundamental purposes.

The Government and the board have a role in setting the strategic direction for policing.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I apologise if others are aware of this, but I am not. Will the Minister indicate the sorts of thing contained within the code of practice? Presumably the character of the code of practice will be different from that of the board's policing plan or the Secretary of State's statement of long-term objectives. In which areas is there likely to be conflict between the code of practice and the policing plan?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The remit for the determination of the policing plan is defined in section 27 of the 2000 Act. It relates to the discharging by the board of any of its functions and the discharging by the Chief Constable of any function that he exercises. I wanted to come to the question of whether I can think of examples of divergence. The honest answer is no because I do not expect there to be significant divergence. The important reason for the change is to give guidance to the Chief Constable, but in an extremely rare eventuality there may be a divergence.

When one considers the underpinning of the provisions, which require agreement, consultation and consistency between the different elements of the responsibilities that the three partners have to carry out, divergence is extremely unlikely. There is continually confusion between the code of ethics, which was recently published by the board, and the codes of practice, which the Secretary of State will bring forward. The recently published code of ethics is not subject to section 27 of the 2000 Act; it is entirely the responsibility of the Policing Board and has been developed under its auspices.

The Government took the view that where there is divergence, the board's policing plan would have primacy to strengthen the role of the board and to give the board slightly greater primacy than that which it had previously had in the tripartite relationship. I appreciate that the relationship is sensitive and has involved the board for a relatively short period, during which the relationship has worked well. One has to consider the context in which we are debating these matters and the implementation plan, which we brought forward after the Weston Park talks.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for elucidating that the recently published code of ethics is not a code of practice under section 27. Has the Secretary of State made a code of practice under section 27, and if so what does it contain? Does he intend to make a code of practice under the section? If so, can the hon. Lady say when that is likely to be?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It is always galling when a Minister is asked a question and does not have the answer to hand. I may be inspired with the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Failing that, I hope to reply to him in greater detail later.

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

I note with interest the point that the Minister makes. Will she agree that the way in which the membership of the board is being substantially increased is a reflection of the devolution that has taken place to date and the devolution envisaged in the 2000 Act and the Bill in relation to policing and justice? Does she agree that that is the right thing to do in the present circumstances?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I agree with my hon. Friend. It was not a question of publishing the list of board members: it was already in the public domain. All the agreements made at Weston Park were not with all the parties. The devolution that has taken place has allowed policing in Northern Ireland to win the support of the Catholic and nationalist communities to a far greater extent than previously, so the changes that we are considering today reflect that devolution.

I said that I might be inspired to answer the point on codes of practice. So far, only one code of practice has been issued. That deals with the financial management of the board's affairs.

I appreciate that this issue is distasteful to some members of the Committee, but in the overall context in which we are making the changes and in view of our debates on clauses 1 and 2, I hope that they will give the clause a fair wind.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Clause 3 - Public meetings of the Board

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

I can be brief on this amendment. I do not take exception to the clause, but I am a little puzzled by subsection (2), which reads:

''In paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (public meetings of the Board) for 'ten' substitute 'eight'.''

As I understand it, the Government wish to say ''You don't have to hold 10 meetings. You only have to hold eight.'' I have a simple query: why?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman asks a straightforward question. The clause amends the 2000 Act to reduce the minimum number of public meetings that the Policing Board must hold each year and, more importantly, to remove the requirement that at least 28 days must elapse between meetings. Why? These changes have been introduced at the specific request of the board, based on its experience over its first year of operation. Their purpose is to give the board greater flexibility in managing its business. Again, the Select Committee, having asked a similar question, endorsed greater flexibility for the board in its report of 28 January.

The amendment would maintain the status quo in relation to the minimum number of public meetings that the board must hold each year and would be contrary to the Policing Board's express wishes. However, the Government do not intend, nor does the board, to reduce transparency. We merely want to ensure that the board has sufficient flexibility in conducting its business. The statutory requirement is a minimum. The board may want to continue to have more frequent public meetings.

As the amendment runs contrary to the board's wishes, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw it, given my assurance that we do not expect any reduction in the public transparency of the board's workings.

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

I note the amendment. I note the clause. I also note what Patten said. He said clearly that the Policing Board should meet in public once a month to receive a report from the Chief Constable. There was already a reduction in Patten in the statute requiring the board to meet 10 times. The clause now requires the board to meet eight times.

I carry a torch for the board, because it is the first of its kind and is doing an enormous job in extremely difficult circumstances against huge odds, but that does not absolve it from meeting its responsibilities under Patten. I listened to the case made by the Minister. I could make a case for it not meeting in January, because January comes after Christmas, which is a time of rest, but I cannot make a case for it not meeting in August. I believe that one of the board's requirements is that it does not meet in August.

August is a holiday period, but for many in the north of Ireland it is a time when things become very difficult. I should have thought that it was the last time in the year when the board would not meet to receive a report from the Chief Constable. If we are not to endorse Patten or the present statute, it is crucial that the board meet during the summer months and should not be absolved, especially in August, from its responsibilities.

I have spoken to some board members about that. They plead, as we all do, overwork. It is true that they are overworked. They are working hard and, in my opinion, working well. However, the last people to require a statutory break in the dilution of Patten that took place in the 2000 Act are the board. For that reason, I am very concerned. I believe that that which

is in statute should not be changed, despite the board's hard work.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I seek to reassure my hon. Friend. This request came to us with the unanimous support of all parties on the board and was, as he rightly says, a reflection of the heavy workload pressure to which board members are subjected. It is my expectation, given the way in which this board has performed over the last year, that they may well seek to have more than eight meetings. Whether or not they will be held in public is a matter for the board. They made it very clear to us that the way in which is was legislated for in the Act was so prescriptive that, as a board, it made their working life very difficult. Faced with what we felt was a reasonable cross-party request, we took it at face value and brought forward that change. I do not expect that it will in any way reduce transparency or the ability that the public has to examine the workings of the board.

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

I have no wish to be the dog in the manger about this, but will the Minister confirm that as of present, the board does not meet in January or August? If that is the case and if there were to be a further reduction in the number of public meetings, could we insist that one of them be in August?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend is incorrect. I have no knowledge of a desire on the part of the board to avoid, in principle, meeting in August. As things stand, it is a matter for the board. If the situation were to be particularly difficult—it has been a difficult time over the past 15 months, not least in public order terms—and the board felt it necessary to hold a meeting, no doubt it would do so. It has conducted itself with great responsibility over the past 15 months. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that it is not our intention wilfully to dilute the Patten principle contained in the original clause. I hope that the Committee will accept that this change has been brought forward as a result of the consultations that I have had with a number of organisations—not least the board itself—on what could be done to make the working arrangements more effective. I hope that the clause will be given a fair hearing.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well, well, well. I had not expected that this would develop into a debate of this sort. I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. It is always a great pleasure to do so. On this occasion he argues that he might agree to a dilution of the Patten proposals from 12 to 10, but not to eight. In the past, our arguments concerned whether or not we should stick rigidly and completely to Patten. I do not agree with that. If we stick to anything, it should be the Belfast agreement.

We are faced with a dilemma. My amendment says that we should not let it go to eight, but stick at 10. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I am anxious to agree, says that that is not enough. The only compromise that I can think of is that if the hon. Gentleman would like, on Report, to table an amendment saying ''delete 10 and insert 12'', I would be inclined to vote with him, to help him get as close to Patten as he possibly can. If he does not want to get that close to Patten in this instance—there are many arguments on why we must stick to Patten in future—I

would be undermined. I hope he argues for consistency.

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

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The difference in this instance is that there is a unanimous request by the Policing Board itself concerning its timetable. I disagree with it. August is a month when the Policing Board could meet in public. The issue cannot be dealt with on Report. I know from bitter experience that there may be provisions in the Bill that we have not fully considered in Committee, which should take precedence over the number of times that the board will meet in public. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that I am making a huge concession by agreeing to move from 12 to 10.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for that. At least we have now established that the hon. Gentleman will interpret Patten as seems appropriate on the occasion, rather than insist that we stick rigidly to it. That is some sort of progress, so I am pleased.

It is claimed that we should make the change because the board wants it, but that is a rotten reason for legislating. The board is a transitory arrangement; there will be another board in due course, as people retire and so on. Are we setting a precedent whereby we appoint more members to the board, invite them to go away and decide how often they want to meet, then provide them with an Act saying that is how often they need to meet? That seems an extraordinary state of affairs. The one reason I had not expected to hear for making the change in legislation was that a little group of people find not having to meet so often much more convenient.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if anything, it is extraordinary to find a provision in legislation that requires the board to meet in public a specific number of times a year? The whole provision is otiose. It is the sort of thing that one expects to be covered in a code of practice, for which there is ample provision under the legislation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is slightly better than suggesting that we should give the Secretary of State powers to decide how many meetings there are to be, which goes back to dictatorial government rather than legislation and Parliament. I hope that that offers a compromise. Are we to come back and have this discussion every time there is a change of board?

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

I note with great interest the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Years of experience gave rise to the very reason why such a provision had to be enshrined in statute. What was regarded as a policing board, which was then the Police Authority and the Chief Constable, refused ever to meet in public and totally rejected transparency. That is the reason why such a provision is written into legislation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not want to intrude on private griefs—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) cannot negotiate with civil servants from that position.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As I say, I do not want to intrude into a private dialogue between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Suffice it to say that there is another, much more significant and serious point that needs to be made. Most people would agree that, if we are to make progress in Northern Ireland along the lines of the Belfast agreement, policing should be at the top of the agenda for building cross-community confidence. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the board needs to meet in public and I wholeheartedly agree. I have no difficulty with that—the board needs to meet frequently. It therefore needs to be a body that is right at the top of the list of priorities for people to target. I find it strange to be told that that body, which represents an attempt to make policing acceptable across the community, is sufficiently low down the list of priorities that the people on it do not want to meet so often so that they can do other things.

There is another way of looking at the matter. If policing is so important but people do not have the time to do the job properly, they should find people who do have the time. That would be another way of solving the problem, rather than legislating for the convenience of existing members. If policing is the priority, people should give their time to it and something else should go. That would be better than holding fewer meetings.

The Minister made it quite clear that the Bill is intended to make more of the board—to give it more power and responsibility and the right to take more of the initiative. More and more work is being given to the board and it is entirely proper that it should meet in public to do much of that work. The Minister argues that the board is being given more to do and more responsibility, yet we are being asked to say that it does not need to meet as often in public. That is a contradiction.

I am deeply unhappy about this matter. I see the Minister shake her head, but it is not something for which I want to go to the stake. I have made it clear that I will sign an amendment tabled on Report by hon. Member for Newry and Armagh if he wants to increase the number. For the moment, having made my points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Funding for pension purposes

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in

clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert 'reasonably'.

My amendment is designed to do something straightforward. It would alter new section 10(1A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. New Subsection (1A) currently states:

''The Board shall submit to the Secretary of State such other information relating to the estimates submitted under subsection (1) as he may require.''

We have been round this course before—it is a hoary old argument, but I make no apologies for raising it in this Committee, as I have raised it many times before. I know the lawyer's argument, but that has never satisfied me in the past, and I suspect that it will not do so this time. I do not like legislation that states that the Secretary of State ''may require'' something. I do not like it in principle, whether or not it is couched in the way that I want.

We come back to the point about government by dictatorship. The Secretary of State can say this, that or the other, with no recourse to Parliament and no democratic debate, about what he shall require. I fully accept that issues have been resolved in that way by Governments of all political persuasions, so on this occasion, I am chastising not a dreadful Labour Government, but all Governments.

It is reasonable to insert the word ''reasonably''. If we are to give the Secretary of State powers, he should use them in a reasonable way. That is all that the amendment is designed to achieve. I do not see any difficulty about that. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Secretary of State is a reasonable person and will always behave reasonably. If that is true, why not include the word in the clause?

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be reasonable, as he assures us he always is, but the word ''reasonably'' would be superfluous in the provision. Not only is the current Secretary of State reasonable, but we would contend that all Secretaries of State are reasonable. If the Secretary of State made an unreasonable request, he would be subject to judicial review, whether or not the word ''reasonably'' appeared in the legislation. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My prediction was correct. I have heard that argument before, it has never satisfied me in the past, and it does not satisfy me now. If the contention is that the current Secretary of State and all future Secretaries of State will behave reasonably, what is wrong with saying so? I do not think that in the past I have ever persuaded anyone that they should take that argument on board, but at least I am consistent—consistently wrong. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Accounts and audit

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My only concern about the clause is why in principle we are making such changes at all. I am anxious that the clause should not pass on the nod, without a debate.

In relation to subsection (3), I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it is necessary to spell out the amounts, given that the 2000 Act has only a general statement of all amounts. We have moved from a general assertion of what might happen to a more specific one. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the reasoning behind that, particularly if the reasoning is that the previous arrangements for audit have been found to be too weak. We need an explanation of where the problems have been in the past, because it will be necessary, if the clause is designed to rectify such problems, to be certain that the way in which they will be rectified will work.

I might wish to speak again in the light of what the Minister says. I look forward to hearing her comments.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The reason for the drafting of the clause is the new FRS 17 accounting standards, which require employers who pay pensions out of their own resources to show in their account full details for schemes, liabilities and assets. That has to be recorded separately, and we do not want it to overshadow or draw attention away from the record of the core financial performance of the police.

The clause amends the provisions of the 2000 Act relating to accounts and the audit of the grant for policing purposes. Taking into account FRS 17, it requires the board to draw up four separate accounts for the four separate strands of money handled by the police: first, amounts placed at the Chief Constable's disposal for police pension purposes; secondly, amounts placed at the Chief Constable's disposal for other police purposes; thirdly, the police fund provided for in section 28 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and fourthly, the police property fund established by the Police (Disposal of Property) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 and falling under section 31 of the 1998 Act.

The statutory police fund is separate from the police fund that is chaired by Sir John Semple. I hope that my reassurance that this accounting measure has been brought forward because of FRS 17 will satisfy the members of the Committee.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I think that it does, but I am not sure that I followed all of the Under-Secretary's reply. I heard about what has changed, rather than what has made it necessary, which was the purpose of my original query. I will be very happy if the hon. Lady wants to have another go,.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I thought that I had made it clear that the new accounting standard FRS 17 makes the measure necessary. It will provide greater transparency, which I believe the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I clearly did not catch everything that the Under-Secretary said. That is the explanation that I was looking for and it satisfies me entirely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Performance summaries

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in

clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1A)'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 19, in

clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

'(1A) In subsection (2) after ''intervals specified in the arrangements'', insert ''(provided the intervals between reviews shall not be greater than one year)''.'.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

'(1B) In subsection (3)(a) after ''Constable'', leave out ''involve him in'' and insert ''obtain his agreement to''.'

Amendment No. 16, in

clause 7, page 4, line 39, at end insert

'set by the Board and the Chief Constable'.

Amendment No. 17, in

clause 7, page 4, line 41, at end insert—

'(c) the reasons why any performance standard was not met'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

There are five amendments standing in my name. I do not wish to pursue the matters covered by amendments Nos. 16 and 17, so I shall not speak to them. I hope that amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 can be disposed of relatively quickly.

Amendment No. 18 relates to section 28(5) of the 2000 Act, which describes various aspects of the performance plan. Subsection (5)(c) states that it shall

''include a summary of the Board's assessment of'',

essentially, the performance during the year—I am abbreviating a subsection that goes on in some detail. At present, the 2000 Act says that the performance plan shall include an assessment of the past. Amendment No. 18 would delete a change introduced by the Bill that says that, instead of including a summary in the performance plan, there shall be a separate performance summary. I understand the logic of that provision, but I wonder why the Government think that it is necessary to make such a pedantic change.

When I spot a pedantic change, I always wonder what it is really about, because I cannot believe that anyone would waste their time making such a change simply to make the legislation look tidier. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary told us what motivated the change made in the clause. Amendment No. 18, which would delete that part of the clause, is intended to focus the Committee's attention on the matter.

Section 28(2) of the 2000 Act states:

''The arrangements shall require the Board to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which its functions are exercised.''

I agree with that very sensible provision. There is no problem with it at all, except that it does not say how often the review shall be carried out. Amendment No. 19 would require that the review be carried out annually. I have no wish to go to the stake for an annual review; I simply use it to make my point. The Under-Secretary might wish to specify a review every two years or every six months. I really do not mind

how often it happens, but if there is a requirement to carry out a review, we should make it clear how often, at a minimum, we expect it to happen.

Amendment No. 20 is more substantial than amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Section 28 of the 2000 Act states that

''The Board shall, in making arrangements which relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, involve him in the making of those arrangements.''

It worries me if all that is needed is the involvement of the Chief Constable. The amendment suggests that, when making arrangements that relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, the board should not only involve him in making those arrangements, but should obtain his agreement to them. If he does not agree to them, we have further undermined the independence of the Chief Constable of a United Kingdom police force, which would be regrettable.

I shall listen with care to the Government's reasons. They might want to make my day by accepting my amendment, and they should accept it, but I do not have much hope that they will. Let them prove me wrong, and I shall be the first to apologise.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are covered by new section 28(5A) of the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to amendment No. 20 and to the interesting argument made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

The clause amends section 28 of the 2000 Act to provide the Policing Board with greater flexibility in the timing of the publication of the summary of past performance required under section 28(5)(c), and was drafted at the express request of the board. With effect from the next financial year, it will be at the board's discretion whether to publish a retrospective assessment and performance summary, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, with the annual report required under section 57 or with the rest of the performance plan. The substance of what has to be produced—an account of the police's performance against the efficiency target that it set itself—has not changed. The only change is to allow flexibility for when it is published and the context in which it is published.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne stressed that amendments Nos. 18 and 19 were particularly important to him. I appreciate his point about an annual review, but it is for the board to determine when it reviews the arrangements and to decide which arrangements are necessary to meet its duty to secure continuous improvement. It would be wrong of us to restrict its flexibility in that respect.

Amendment No. 20 would require the Chief Constable's agreement to those arrangements to be sought. I understand the hon. Gentleman's reason for tabling it, but it would run contrary to the commitment that the Government gave during consideration of the 2000 Act to give the board a central role in delivering efficiency and effectiveness. It is not to hamper the Chief Constable in operational matters.

Section 28 of the 2000 Act places the duty to make arrangements to make continuous improvements in the exercise of the functions of the board and the police squarely on the board. It is the board's responsibility, and the board and the Chief Constable are required to review their functions as part of those arrangements. The board is required to produce a single performance plan for itself and the police on how best value is to be delivered. It is also required to set targets and benchmarks against which performance can be judged.

In all those arrangements, the Government's intention is that the board and Chief Constable should work together to deliver best value. In particular, the board will be required to work closely with the police in drawing up targets and producing performance plans. I know that this is happening, and that the police are gearing up to their own internal continuous improvement plans. In view of my explanation that responsibility lies with the board, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I listened to the Minister with care. I was fascinated by her argument against my amendment, which would require that we specify how often the review took place. She said that it was wrong of us to seek to restrict the power of the board to make its own decisions. I think that the Minister's argument is that it should be free to decide how often it carries out the review. I find it curious to hear that argument used against me so soon after being told that it is entirely proper to determine the number of times in a year that the board ''shall'' meet. That does not seem to leave it free to make up its own mind.

It is confusing to find that it if it suits the Government's purpose, they will tell the board what to do, and when it does not suit their purpose to do so, they will use the argument that the board should be free to make up its own mind. That is a curious way to proceed. I would have expected the Government to seek consistency in legislation. I understand the point that is being made. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that the matter could go into a code of practice, and I am sure it could—indeed, between the two of us, Mr. Gale, we could keep a list of such things and publish a draft code on Report to see whether the Government might find it acceptable.

Amendment No. 20 raises a matter of serious substance. The Minister said that the board should have a central role, and no one disputes that. But the Chief Constable, too, should have a central role—I hope that the Minister does not dispute that. The fact that matters of economy, efficiency and effectiveness are involved and that those are matters for the board is not an adequate justification for saying that the Chief Constable should not have some sort of veto.

A classic way of pursuing the three Es in management is to introduce performance targets. The Government know all about performance targets and how to use them for party political ends rather than management ends. If we leave the Bill in its present form, the board will be able to set performance targets for the Chief Constable. He will be able to comment on them, but he will not be able to defend himself against targets being introduced for political

ends. That would upset the balance of power by transferring too much power into the hands of the board. If a board decided that it wanted to undermine the independence of the Chief Constable and to hound him out of office, it would be easy enough to set performance targets that he simply could not meet, and although he might protest, he would still be held responsible.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Is not my hon. Friend's point all the more forceful because the Police Service of Northern Ireland is severely under-established?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Exactly so. That is the sort of practical reason that the Chief Constable could pray in aid for his failure to be as efficient, effective and economic as he should be. The point remains, however, that the Bill ought to provide some means whereby the Chief Constable can keep his central role—a role that the Minister says is important—alongside an enhanced role for the Policing Board.

I hear what the Minister says, but it does not satisfy me. It is a greater matter than we can deal with this afternoon. I therefore suspect that I and, I hope, my hon. Friends will return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Reports of Chief Constable

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in

clause 9, page 6, line 10, at end insert—

'(1A) At the beginning of subsection (2), insert ''Except where subsection (2A) applies''.

(1B) After subsection (2) insert—

''(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply where a longer period for the purposes of (2)(b) is not agreed by the Chief Constable and the Board and, in such a case, a report shall be made within such longer period as may be determined by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.''.'.

There is a cluster of amendments, and I plead guilty to amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a cluster of amendments, but amendment No. 57 is being taken alone. Most of those other amendments are grouped. It has always been my custom, if there is a large number of amendments, to allow a stand part debate at the start of the clause rather than at the end, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have both. If he finds it convenient to engage now in a wide-ranging debate, I am happy to permit it on the understanding that there will not be a stand part debate later.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I would like to do it that way, Mr. Gale, with your permission, because it would be quite difficult to speak to each of the amendments individually. They are part of a theme, and I would be happy to speak to them all in the context of such a debate.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I plead guilty to amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 98. Will those

be considered in terms of the previous cluster? I simply seek advice so that I know at which point to address the amendments.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The amendments have been grouped in the way that they have, partly because they are grouped legally and partly to allow, for example, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to move his own amendment. I have the flexibility to group the whole lot together, but if I do that, he may find his debate slightly curtailed.

I shall revert to plan A and suggest that we take amendment No. 57, which is scheduled to be debated now. Again, I am prepared to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate across the whole clause. We shall then move to the next selection of amendments and the final selection, which will allow the Committee a fair crack of the whip. I repeat that we shall take amendment No. 57 on the understanding that it will be a fairly broad debate and there will be no stand part debate at the end.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Thank you for your wise ruling, Mr. Gale. I think that I shall be able to stay comfortably within your parameters—I am sure that you will tell me if I do not.

Clause 9 amends the way in which the Chief Constable is required to make reports to the Policing Board. Section 59 of the 2000 Act requires him to submit reports when required to do so by the board. However, there are currently four grounds on which such a requirement can be referred to the Secretary of State if the Chief Constable thinks that a report would contain information that should not be disclosed. It might be useful, as they are not long, to outline the four grounds.

The first ground is

''in the interests of national security''.

That is a reserved position, on which he does not disclose or report. The second exemption is because the information

''relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature''.

The third exemption is

''because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law''.

I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.

However, under the existing law, which the Bill changes, there has been a fourth exemption, which was because the information

''would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders''.

The Bill abolishes the fourth exemption. We are very concerned about that and seek to put it right. That is the basis of the second of my amendments. In our view, the change could seriously undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the Chief Constable, as he will now be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the Policing Board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. We feel very strongly that that is unacceptable.

The Bill makes similar changes to section 60 of the 2000 Act, which deals with the initiation of an inquiry by the Policing Board following a report to it by the Chief Constable. Currently, section 60(3) of that Act allows the Chief Constable to appeal to the Secretary of State if he believes that an inquiry should not be held on any of the same four grounds that are set out in the Act. Clause 10 would replace those with the grounds that are set out in new section 76A(2), which is contained in clause 22. The measures that are being considered in respect of clause 9 would undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable. We seek to address the qualification of the Chief Constable's obligation to provide reports and we wish him to have the protection that he had before.

Our proposed remedy seeks to provide a role in those matters for Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary and for the Secretary of State. That would facilitate delay if the Chief Constable needed more time and it would reinstate the fourth ground. When the matter was considered in another place, the Lord Privy Seal addressed it and, as I understand it, made a concession. If that is true, the Government should know about it. Currently, the Chief Constable is supposed to respond to any request for information within one month, but that period could be extended if the board agreed.

Lord Williams of Mostyn said that the Government would change the code of practice on the conduct of the board under section 271(a) of the 2000 Act, so that if there were no agreement between the Chief Constable and the board on the matter it could be referred to HMIC if the Chief Constable's concern related to the impact of a particular timescale on the police's ability to prevent or detect crime. In short, if we were to dispute the matter, HMIC would become the umpire. To address the matter by issuing a code of practice ruling would, in our opinion, go halfway—it is half a loaf. I suppose that we may even have to settle for that in the end. However, the amendments are intended to get both the fourth protection and the umpiring facility if time seems too short. We want those provisions to be written into the Bill and, ultimately, into the Act.

I hope that I have not trespassed on your patience, Mr. Gale, nor stepped outside the rules that you establish, but may I put my case one last time in plain man's terms? Where there is a dispute about how long the Chief Constable would require to make a report, we suggest that HMIC should act as umpire. We also wish to restore the fourth protection to the Chief Constable; that fourth case in which he need not disclose something that

''would, or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.''

The fourth ground must be restored, otherwise the position of the Chief Constable, his role and his work would be hampered unacceptably.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I presume that in view of your earlier rulings, Mr. Gale, which I hope that I have interpreted correctly, you intend that this should not just be a debate on amendment No. 57.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Let me clarify that point for the right hon. Gentleman. Sometimes it is convenient for hon. Members to engage in a reasonably wide-ranging debate when amendments to clauses are interrelated, but we are discussing amendment No. 57. We shall move on to the other amendments, including those in the right hon. Gentleman's name, in due course.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I shall contain myself until then.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Do I wait until the discussions on amendment No. 57 and the next group of amendments have finished, or do I make my contribution now? I ask your advice, because I am unashamedly confused.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

If the hon. Gentleman is confused, I have sown the confusion. We are debating amendment No. 57. I have said expressly that I am happy to allow the Committee to engage in a reasonably wide-ranging debate because other matters need to be discussed. However, following the debate on amendment No. 57, there will be a debate on amendment No. 58 and related amendments. Following that debate, there will be a further debate on amendment No. 93, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. If he has points to raise now, he may do so. Alternatively, he may wait and save his fire until we reach amendment No. 93, which he will be called on to move.

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

I thank you for that advice, Mr. Gale.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

As has been said, clause 9 amends section 59 of the 2000 Act, which deals with the Chief Constable's general duty to report to the board, and it is worth spelling out those changes exactly. Clause 57 removes the grounds of referral, including the fourth ground of referral referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull. They are now addressed in a new stand-alone section 76A in clause 22, which we will debate later. The clause also amends the 2000 Act to allow the Secretary of State to oblige the Chief Constable to share sensitive information only with a small committee, rather than a full board, in the event of a board inquiry. It also allows the Chief Constable of his own volition to share sensitive information with that small committee, rather than the full board. The clause also requires him, if he shares such information with either the board or committee, to identify that information as sensitive and requires that it should not be disclosed further.

Clause 9 was amended substantially during its passage through another place. The version before us includes some detailed provision for the handling of sensitive information in the context of reports. The purpose of those provisions, and the associated provisions of clauses 20 and 21, is to ensure appropriate protection for the most sensitive information while giving the board's representatives access to sufficient information to fulfil its accountability duties properly. The grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer a request for a report to the Secretary of State are to be amended, but, as I have said, the revised grounds are set out in a separate stand-alone provision that is inserted by

clause 22. That change has been made to avoid repeated reference to the same set of criteria throughout the legislation.

I recognise that the provisions are complex, and we will debate provisions of similar complexity on the next two groups of amendments. However, the provisions give important protections that allow the Chief Constable to be as open as possible with the board on delicate matters without compromising the security of the nation or an individual.

I have much sympathy with the thinking behind amendment No. 57, and I recognise the concerns articulated by the hon. Member for Solihull. In many ways, there is not much between the Government and Opposition on the proposal. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government made it clear in another place that they recognised the need to cater for a situation in which agreement between the board and Chief Constable on the timing of a report under section 59 proved impossible, however unlikely we considered that to be. We said then that the best place to deal with that was in a code of practice on the operation of sections 59 and 60, made under section 27 of the 2000 Act. A draft code of practice is already with the board for consultation, so that is a second code of practice that is being developed. However, amendments to it will be necessary, following the Bill and our deliberations in the House.

The Government would be prepared to include in the code a recommendation that, should agreement under section 59(2)(b) prove impossible, the board should seek independent, expert advice from HMIC. We believe that it is more appropriate to deal with that through the code of practice than in the Bill. However, I undertake to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments and consider whether we should return to the matter on Report.

I want to deal with the dropping of the fourth ground. I followed the debate in another place carefully. The Policing Board's primary statutory duty is to maintain an effective police service in Northern Ireland. It would be contrary to that duty if it requested a report in a time scale that could prejudice a major ongoing investigation or operation. Section 59(2)(b) of the 2000 Act contains a provision for the board and the Chief Constable to agree a time scale for the production of such a report. I have every confidence that both organisations will seek to reach a sensible accommodation on the time scale to avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations. In addition, we will provide a role for HMIC in the code of conduct.

I have ranged more widely over the other changes that the clause makes, but I hope that I have answered all the points raised by the hon. Member for Solihull. On the basis that I shall consider his arguments further, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I find that reply quite encouraging and I wish to respond to the Minister in the same spirit. On the understanding that she will think about the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in

clause 9, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

'(3A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State a requirement to submit a report under subsection (1) if it appears to the Chief Constable that a report in compliance with the requirement would contain information that ought not to be disclosed because it would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.''.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 25, in

clause 9, page 6, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

No. 59, in

clause 9, page 6, line 24, at end insert—

'(aa) exempting the Chief Constable from the obligation to report to the Board information the disclosure of which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders;'.

No. 26, in

clause 9, page 6, line 35, leave out 'or (b)' and insert ', (b) or (c)'.

No. 27, in

clause 9, page 6, line 38, leave out 'or'.

No. 28, in

clause 9, page 6, line 40, at end insert

'or

(c) information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 60, in

clause 9, page 6, line 40, at end insert—

'(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.''.'.

No. 61, in

clause 10, page 7, line 35, at end insert—

'(3A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State the decision of the Board to cause an inquiry held under this section if it appears to the Chief Constable that such an inquiry ought not to be held because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.''.'.

No. 30, in

clause 10, page 7, line 44, leave out 'or'.

No. 31, in

clause 10, page 8, line 2, at end insert

'or

(c) information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 62, in

clause 10, page 8, line 2, at end insert

'or

(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 32, in

clause 10, page 8, line 8, leave out 'or (b)' and insert ', (b) or (c)'.

No. 67, in

clause 18, page 12, line 4, at end insert—

(2A) Subsection (1) does not require the Chief Constable to supply any information to the Board if it appears to the Chief Constable that the information ought not to be disclosed on the grounds that it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 42, in

clause 18, page 12, line 8, at end insert

'or information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders'.

No. 43, in

clause 18, page 12, line 15, leave out 'or'.

No. 44, in

clause 18, page 12, line 17, at end insert

'or

(c) information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders'.

No. 68, in

clause 18, page 12, line 17, at end insert—

(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 45, in

clause 18, page 12, line 23, leave out 'or (b)' and insert ', (b) or (c)'.

No. 69, in

clause 20, page 13, line 15, at end insert—

'(d) the Chief Constable informs the person that, in his opinion, the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 70, in

clause 20, page 13, line 23, at end insert—

'(c) the Chief Constable informs the Board or the Committee under section 33A(6) or 59 (4H) that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind that would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

No. 48, in

clause 22, page 15, line 12, at end insert—

'(d) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders'.

No. 49, in

clause 22, page 15, line 19, at end insert—

'(d) the inquiry would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders'.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Following the extremely helpful ruling, Mr. Gale, that you would allow me to discuss amendment No. 57 in a rather broad way that might overlap with other groups, I do not wish to delay the Committee further by addressing the other amendments. I believe that I have said what I want to say.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Technically, have I spoken to amendment No. 58?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Yes. If the hon. Gentleman had chosen not to, he would have denied other Members the opportunity to debate the additional amendments.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As you expected, Mr. Gale, I want to speak to a number of amendments that stand in my name. The key one is amendment No. 28, which would reinstate the fourth ground that has been referred to, which is in section 59(3) of the 2000 Act and which clause 9, taken with subsequent clauses, would remove. I shall return to the Minister's comments on how section 59(2)(b) can be manipulated to achieve the same objective as section 59(3)(d). We must consider whether that is an appropriate way to proceed.

I want to deal with the substance of the question whether it is appropriate to retain safeguards such as those in section 59(3)(d), which is being removed. When the matter was discussed in another place, the issue of the removal of paragraph (d) was raised. The only justification given by the Government for the amendment was to quote a sentence from paragraph 6.22 of the Patten report:

''The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts.''

It is important to bear in mind the fact that the Patten report, like many reports, contains matters of discussion as well as matters of recommendation. The formal recommendations do not necessarily involve every jot and tittle of the report, and those in paragraph 6.22 are clear because they are in bold, italic print. The recommendations are the first and third sentences, which I have not quoted, but not the second sentence, which I have.

That point is strengthened by the summary of recommendations. The recommendation relating to paragraph 6.22 states:

''The Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service. The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions. If there is a disagreement between the Board and the Chief Constable over whether it is appropriate for a report to be provided on a particular matter, it should be for the Chief Constable to refer the question to the Secretary of State for a decision as to whether the Board's requirements should stand.''

The recommendation set out by Patten in no way qualifies the capacity of the Chief Constable. If there is a disagreement, it should be for the Chief Constable to refer the question to the Secretary of State. The formal recommendation in the Patten report does not limit the Chief Constable's power to refer matters to the Secretary of State.

The Government relied on a sentence in paragraph 6.22, which states that the grounds should be strictly limited. Although Patten says that the grounds should be strictly limited, that is not part of the report's recommendations. Furthermore, the sentence is bold, there is no discussion and no effort to indicate why those matters should be chosen. One might feel that national security and other matters are important and perhaps self-evident, but Patten did not set out such a justification. That is one reason why I described the Patten report as ''shoddy'' on its publication. In describing it so, I had in mind the fact that it is not a

well-argued paper. Its recommendations are not set out clearly, the reasons are not set out and the language is loose.

The sentence in paragraph 6.22 that has given us the problems boldly states:

''The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts.''

The term ''such as'' introduces a degree of looseness, as does ''cases before the courts''.

There is nothing exceptionable about section 59(3)(d), which mentions information that might

''prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders''.

That is closely related to ''matters . . . before the courts''. In dealing with the detection of crime and prosecution of offenders, some cases may not yet have come before the court, but that is clearly closely related to detection and prosecution. Prosecution, of course, brings one into the courts. The sentence in the Patten report is loose, not clearly defined, and no justification is given for it. However, because some Members treat Patten as holy writ, it was adopted without thought or the application of any intelligence.

As Members will have gathered, I think that the way in which certain parties approach the report is quite offensive in its anti-intellectualism. The Government, in accepting the argument and so deleting paragraph (d), are taking a foolish line. There are considerable dangers in what they are doing. Premature inquiries by the board could prejudice the detection and prosecution of crime in a number of ways simply by interrupting police inquiries and, whatever happens, that will be a diversion of energy, which is not advisable. Of course, as the Minister says, the preceding paragraph about agreeing the time limit can be manipulated so as to prevent an inquiry from being disrupted in that way. I suppose that that course is open to the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, but only up to a point, as it would, nevertheless, be a manipulation of the provision. That is not an effective way to achieve such things.

There is another way in which removing paragraph (d) will prejudice matters, and that is through the possible leakage of information. To try to cope with that danger, the Government have introduced elaborate procedures with regard to committees, offences and so on, none of which is in the Patten report. The Government began with a slavish adherence to an ill thought out sentence and ended up introducing an elaborate process that is not in Patten. It will introduce invidious distinctions in the Policing Board and cause enormous difficulty. All that has been done simply to avoid the common-sense provision of section 59(3)(d).

Unfortunately, the issue comes back to some parties' rigid adherence to a rather shoddy report. If that report had been properly thought out and argued, I would have been surprised if paragraph (d) were not set out in it. I suspect that Members would have contemplated the matter at the time if they had thought about the report and if it had not been

produced in an awful rush so as to enable its chairman to go on to a more lucrative appointment.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I know that many Members have concerns about the removal of the fourth ground of referral from sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act, and that issue is covered by this group of amendments. I shall try to tackle those concerns.

First, the move reflects more fully the Patten recommendations. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann debates the clarity of those. Three parts of the report are referred to, and I am not sure that he quoted the central one, which says:

''The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited''.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I think I did.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman did.

Secondly, the move takes it into account that the Policing Board, whose statutory function is to ensure an effective police service in Northern Ireland, is not likely to do anything that would adversely affect the work of the police in the detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders. Indeed, were it to do so, it would be open to the Chief Constable to seek judicial review of the reasonableness of the board's request for the information.

Thirdly, it is worth noting that the board has not, in the 15 months since it was established, requested a report or an inquiry under sections 59 or 60. We are therefore talking about exceptional circumstances.

In seeking to explain the further rationale for the change, I invite the Committee to consider the issue from another perspective. As Members know, the grounds of referral, currently four in number in the 2000 Act, are a basis on which the Chief Constable, with the Secretary of State's agreement, could block a report or prevent an inquiry. Nothing in the Act requires the Secretary of State to give his reasons for turning down a request for an inquiry.

There is a concern among constitutional nationalists that such wide-ranging powers could be abused, if not by a Secretary of State, then by a devolved Minister of justice. The view is that the board could be thwarted in exercising its proper role of holding the Chief Constable to account. Against that background, we considered, in consultation with the previous Chief Constable, where the balance should properly be struck. I believe that the grounds as set out in the Bill, when taken with the other safeguards provided for both in the Bill and in the existing legislation, get that balance right.

The majority of amendments in this group would, in some shape or form, reintroduce the fourth ground. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not consider that appropriate. Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, 42 to 45, 60, 62 and 68 propose that such information that would have been covered by fourth ground—information whose disclosure could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime—might be shared with the committee, rather than with the full board.

My initial reaction is that there is no need for those amendments, as the board, with its statutory remit to ensure the effective policing of Northern Ireland, is not likely to do anything that would adversely affect the work of the police in relation to the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders. However, I would like to reflect further on the comments made on this group in so far as they relate to the small committee variant. If appropriate, and having reflected further, I may consider raising the issue again on Report.

Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 deal with the offence that would be involved if disclosure of information took place. Of course, many other offences in the criminal law could, in certain circumstances, apply to improper disclosure of sensitive information. Depending on the use to which any information gained in the context of the board's work was put, the person disclosing it could be charged with conspiracy, or with a specific offence under the Terrorism Act 2000—for example, disclosing information likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation, or collecting or communicating information likely to be of use to terrorists. The criminal law already provides for that, and I see no need to replicate all those provisions in the Bill.

The amendments would make it an offence to disclose information identified by the Chief Constable as being likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. That relates to the fourth ground of referral in the 2000 Act. The issue was debated at length in another place, and we said that there is scope for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to play a valuable role. We have signalled our intention to include that in the revised code of practice, and we believe that that is the more appropriate approach.

Amendment No. 25 would delete clause 9(3). It is in the best interest of the board and the public's confidence in its ability to hold the police to account that both the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State should have maximum flexibility in exercising discretion when considering whether information covered by the grounds in clause 22 should be disclosed to the board.

Clause 9(3) gives the Secretary of State the option of modifying the board's request to require the Chief Constable to share sensitive information with only a small group of the board, and that is an important option. If the Secretary of State makes the judgment that such information should be kept within a tight circulation, but that it could be shared appropriately with representatives of the board given that safeguard, it is surely right that the Secretary of State could empower the Chief Constable to share the information. However, the clause does not require the Secretary of State to ensure that information goes to a committee of the board irrespective of its sensitivity.

Each case will be considered on its merits and there will be a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State. The removal of clause 9(3) would not change that; it would merely remove one of the Secretary of State's options. That would be a mistake, and I hope that the

hon. Member for Solihull withdraws his amendment to allow us further to consider amendments on Report.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I call the hon. Member for Solihull.

Mr. Wilshire rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

This amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Solihull. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.