Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2003.

Standing Committee E

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I wish to clarify why, despite being a member of the Committee, I did not receive notice of the sitting on Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) apologised for my absence from the debate in the House of Commons on 10 February, which was due to my mother's critical illness. I would have attended Tuesday's Committee sitting but I did not receive notice. Perhaps it could be established why that happened. My absence was unavoidable because I did not receive any notice.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman's disappointment is a matter of record. It is always regrettable if members of the Committee do not receive papers in a timely fashion, and we will certainly examine the issue. However—this is not specific to the hon. Gentleman—it is generally up to hon. Members to ensure that they organise forwarding arrangements if they are not collecting their mail directly from the House of Commons.Clause 18 Provision of information to Board

Clause 18 - Provision of information to Board

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

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in

clause 18, page 11, line 35, after 'information', insert 'and documents'.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment that would benefit the board. In many ways, it was motivated by board experience. When there was controversy about the report into the investigation of the Omagh murders, the board requested sight of the outcome of the inquiry, which had not been conducted within the Police Service. It will probably be known forever as the McVicker report. It was a commentary on the Police Service.

The notion that the board would have access to such information was resisted for a considerable time. Eventually, quite rightly, the board obtained it. The board subsequently made a request for information. The amendment reflects that request. Information alone is not adequate because it would be constrained by the safeguards that we have already discussed—national security matters, sensitive personnel matters or those likely to prejudice cases.

The board also has a right to documents. The drafting of the clause cannot be regarded as an oversight because the police ombudsman, under section 66 of the 2000 Act, has the right to both information and documents. It is only proper for the board to have the right to information and documents, and I see no reason why it should not, given the nature

of its role. Nor can it be argued that it is dangerous to give the board the right to documents. We have heard many examples of apprehension about making information available, which I understand. However, if this clause 18 and other clauses are going to work, and if the board is going to make decisions and recommendations, it should be in possession of all the facts.

It should be trusted to exercise its powers responsibly, as it has done to date. Indeed, within the Bill there is a proposal for a special committee procedure for dealing with sensitive information. I repeat that there are the Patten recommendations relating to the grounds on which a request for information and, by extension, documents could be refused. I believe that the amendment respects all those concerns; that, from the board's point of view, it makes sense; and that it contains the protections and safeguards that are required.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thought about the matter overnight and the more that I think about the amendment, much as I want to support the hon. Gentleman, I cannot. There are two ways of looking at it. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is a need to verify information that is provided, so that people can be reassured that the information as provided by the Chief Constable is correct, accurate and complete, I can go some way along with him. If his motive is to get a sight of documents, I do not.

If the hon. Gentleman were arguing that he was worried about information provided that refers to documents that the board does not get a chance to see and whether there can be verification, that points to the ombudsman. If he were to have tabled an amendment or new clause that said that some mechanism should be set up when, if there were some difficulty, a judge or someone from the judiciary should be able to act as an independent verifier of information, I could go along with that. However, we are being asked to agree to the handing over of documents to the board or perhaps a committee of the board, especially set up to deal with the matter. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that that is fairly harmless, reasonable action to take.

We must accept that in due course possibly, if some people have their way, membership of the board will include either terrorists or former terrorists who have their own reasons for wanting to get hold of documents. Moreover, a document in itself may not be 100 per cent. relevant to the inquiry. It is possible that one document—an inquiry made by the police—may include a witness statement, which would be the required document, and that witness statement could be 50 per cent. to do with the matter that concerns the board and 50 per cent. to do with something entirely different.

The document is not protected, as the hon. Gentleman asserts, from all abuse. We argued earlier that it was wrong to remove protection for the investigation of crime, so it is possible that, when carrying out an inquiry into one matter, a document might mention an investigation into something entirely different. The investigation is then compromised. It is possible that a document providing factual

information, if it were produced, would reveal the source of the information, identify the informant and thus put that person's life at risk.

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

What about the conditions?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As I understand them, the conditions apply to the inquiry. If the person subject to the inquiry will be compromised, there will be protection. I accept that. However, I am saying that such matters that have nothing to do with the inquiry, but are extraneous information about something entirely different, which is attached to a document that is relevant. The 2000 Act does not make it absolutely clear that the protection will extend to a third party. Even if it does, there is no protection with regard to compromising or prejudicial criminal investigations: that has been left out. The hon. Gentleman frowns. He should read the safeguards that are referred to in the clause: they have been debated and we have objected to them because they do not include such protection.

A document demanded that is handed to the board might contain extraneous information. That could create a serious situation: the information might identify an informant and put his or her life at risk, or reveal financial information about third parties. I doubt whether financial information is covered by the term ''personnel information'' that is referred to in the list of exceptions. There might be a great deal of financial information about somebody, and someone who undertakes a background inquiry into a person tends to list all that is known about that individual. I fail to see why documents that might contain information that has nothing to do with the inquiry that is being carried out should be handed to the board, whose members are of diverse political persuasions that represent the entire community.

I am deeply worried about the practicalities of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I have some sympathy with the principle of the need for the board to be reassured that the information that it is given is accurate and complete. If he were to suggest on Report that there is a way of achieving such reassurance, I would be willing to consider supporting him, so long as his proposal makes sense and has safeguards. However, I am deeply worried by the suggestion that the board must have the absolute right to demand documents as well as information. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am sorry, but the Government adopt the same position as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Does that grieve the Minister?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It might be useful to draw attention to what we are discussing. We are talking not about the circumstances of the board conducting a report or inquiry that the hon. Member for Spelthorne described, but about more informal arrangements between the board and the Chief Constable. New section 33A(1), which is entitled ''Provision of information to Board'', states:

''The Chief Constable shall supply the Board with such information as the Board may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of its functions.''

Therefore, the board will be going through a much more normal process than that which has been described.

We are responding to representations from the board. My legal advice is that there is nothing to prevent the Chief Constable from sharing relevant documents with the board. Therefore, in many respects, my hon. Friend's amendment is unnecessary.

I wish to re-emphasise how the clause originated. It was proposed by the board, which stated that it

''would not wish to use the full reports and inquiries provisions in everyday circumstances where the Chief Constable does not provide sufficient information to enable the Board to fulfil its functions''.

We have debated that. That request was clearly cast in terms of information and of everyday circumstances that are qualitatively different than the more formal circumstances that the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to and which obtain under section 59 of the 2000 Act.

I understand my hon. Friend's point about parity with the provision relating to the ombudsman in section 66 of the 2000 Act, but he is not comparing like with like. Once again, there is a greater formality in the ombudsman's role. Her primary role is to investigate complaints and to take views on issues that are of a criminal or disciplinary nature. As such, she is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and for that reason she may, in the course of an investigation, need access to an original document to allow her to weigh the evidence. Again, she has a statutory role in relation to police practices and policies. In carrying out that function, she needs access to force documents relating to the policy.

The board's role, however, is quite different. Its purpose is to hold the Chief Constable—and, through him, the wider Police Service—to account. The board has no forensic interest in original documents; rather, it has an interest in full access to all relevant information, and the clause gives it that access. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to go further and adopt the amendment.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I broadly support the Minister in resisting the amendment, but I urge her to reflect on a general rule of evidence. If a document were to be placed before the board, it would be difficult to fillet it and place part, and not the entirety, at the disposal of the board. The general rule of evidence is that if part of a document is an issue, the whole document is. In that respect, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I think that, indirectly, I am supporting the Minister too. If there is both extraneous and dangerous material in a document, will the Chief Constable be put in the invidious position of having to place before the board part, not all, of the document?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I know that what he mentions is a concern, and we will debate the issue in greater detail later today.

The objective is to allow the board to receive documents without having to use the more formal

powers that are included elsewhere in the Bill. I believe that the clause, as it stands, is fair and measured.

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

I wonder whether I understood the Minister correctly, and whether she said that, under the clause, ''information'' is not exclusively non-written information and that documentation can be made available at the decision of the Chief Constable. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, should not the board expect more than to be given information that may not be complete? I would like the Minister's view on that, because it almost implies that the board is only good enough to get whatever information someone else decides to give it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and indeed the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised the question of independent verification of information. However, hon. Members are talking about a much more adversarial context than that in which the clause would work. We are talking not about circumstances where the board requests the information for the purposes of a report or inquiry; but about information provided for the ordinary, day-to-day business of the Policing Board.

If the board believed that the Chief Constable had not provided the information it asked for, whether deliberately or otherwise, it could challenge him on that point, and the matter could go to law. The sort of arguments that the hon. Member for Solihull raised might then be relevant, but I do not think that that would arise. The clause would give the board a statutory relationship with the Chief Constable in the event of the board requesting information from him in order to allow it to conduct its everyday business without having to resort to the stronger measures that would be available when conducting a report or inquiry.

It is worth telling the Committee that the clause originally required the Chief Constable to supply whatever information was ''reasonably'' required by the board. I know that we frequently debate in Committee whether the word ''reasonably'' should be used. In another place, the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment to remove ''reasonably''. The clause, as it stands, is adequate without my hon. Friend's amendment. The information described in the clause is sufficient to meet the board's worries.

Mr. Taylor rose—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I was just about to finish.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially because she was bringing her well-reasoned response to a conclusion. Will the hon. Lady reflect that the word ''reasonable'' and the concept of reasonableness is well rooted in the law of England and Wales, at least—I have some trepidation about wondering how the word might apply in Northern Ireland? Reasonableness is a long-established concept, as is the character known as the reasonable man, who presumably personifies reasonableness and thinks in a reasonable way.

When the question ''Who is the reasonable man'' was put to the test by the English law, the answer from learned authority was that he is the man on the Clapham omnibus. I do not know who is on the Clapham omnibus today, but people on Clapham omnibuses are reasonable. The concept of reasonableness is known in English law. The Minister should not be shy of, or try to sidestep, reasonableness. It can be well used, even though the Liberal Democrats removed the word in another place.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that reasonableness means taking all relevant considerations into account, and it is a well-established concept in directing statutory powers properly. As I said, the Government believe that the clause strikes the right balance between establishing the board's general right of access to information and ensuring that there is proper protection of sensitive information, which we shall debate shortly. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Before the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) winds up, may I point out that the Minister's response to points made by the hon. Gentleman and myself went beyond the amendment and included comments about the clause? I want to talk about the clause itself, but I deliberately confined my remarks to the amendment. Will you give us guidance on whether there will be a stand part debate or whether I must make more points now?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman has served on Committees under my chairmanship for long enough to know that I take a relaxed view on such matters. It is in order and quite proper for hon. Members to debate issues that arise from a clause in the right context. It is up to the Chair to keep the Committee in order, and if I decide that something is out of order, I shall say so. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that I shall assess at the end of the debate whether matters arising from the clause have been fully and satisfactorily debated. If I deem that they have, there will be no stand part debate. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise other issues, I am sure that he will find the opportunity to do so.

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

I have listened with interest, especially to the definition of reasonable persons, although I find it hard to go along with the notion that reasonableness belongs to one type of person. There is a floating feeling in the Committee that reasonable people will be found everywhere but on the Policing Board. That worries me somewhat because we are hearing of obsessions about what the terrible people on the board might do if they were able to wring information out of the Chief Constable or the policing system. I do not believe that. My view is that the Policing Board is working well, that it will work well in future and that it will contain reasonable people, although they will have political views and they will come from political parties.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his view of reasonableness in the present context may be one thing, but that the context might be different in the next few weeks and months? What if

members of the Policing Board were far from reasonable, being engaged in terror and spying and assisting FARC guerrillas in Columbia? Would he then be prepared to use the term ''reasonableness''?

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

There is validity in the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and it is not the first time that he has made it. I can answer only in the broadest terms. Some of us would consider certain people in the political process as unreasonable. We would not want to go to tea with them, but that does not affect the right of a person or a political party to pursue their objectives by political means. The thesis of the new political dispensation in policing and, indeed, in every other way is that we are moving away from those days, from those points of view and from those activities.

I did not want to do this, and I will try to be as gentle as possible: if I were, perhaps, to apply the Clapham omnibus definition of reasonableness to people in the hon. Gentleman's party, who at times strutted on stages with red berets and were associated with those who had guns hidden throughout the north of Ireland, he might ask me to test the reasonableness of representatives from his party becoming members of the board. I am trying to resist doing that.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

May I draw out the hon. Gentleman on what I think is a possible, but unsaid, element of his argument? Under the proposal that is contained in his amendment, does he think that the reasonable majority on the board might prevent an unreasonable minority, to which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) referred, from asking for any documents that might be inappropriate? He has not said that and I would be interested to know what are his views.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before we proceed, I think that any reasonable man might construe that the hon. Member for Spelthorne is correct in saying that the debate has now ranged rather more widely than the amendment. I am happy with that, but I have to advise the Committee that is unlikely that there will be a stand part debate.

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

Thank you for that advice, Mr. Gale. There is no mathematical or definitive answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I tried to make a point, and I made it reluctantly. I think that it is unreasonable for people who claim to be a part of the political process to stand on stages in Belfast wearing red berets as part of a rally organised by something known as Ulster Resistance. However, such people are part of the Policing Board. I refer, of course, to members of the party of the hon. Member for East Londonderry's, who are Members of Parliament, and I regard that as unreasonable. I also regard it as unreasonable to be a member of an organisation that is using guns. That applies to other political parties. I believe that it is unreasonable for people to have associations with unreasonable groupings in our society for their own political reasons.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was trying to get my mind round the amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that a

justification for it is that people in Northern Ireland wear red berets? Is that what we are being asked to accept? Otherwise, I am at a loss to understand what a debate about red berets is all about.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am beginning to feel that not only is the debate ranging rather more widely than the amendment, which I am prepared to tolerate in the context of the clause, but that it is now ranging rather wider than the clause, which I am not prepared to tolerate.

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

I shall leave that topic. Suffice it to say—to help out the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that I may be referring to those people whom he often visits in Belfast.

The amendment is not what it has been blown up to be, thus ending up in red berets. It would be reasonable action to take. There will be many circumstances when information could not be properly given, without documentation. I can imagine circumstances when people on the board could not assess a situation unless they had documentation. The McVicker experience proved to be a substantial point in policing. It came from within the Police Service and added value to the board, which had to fight to get it. That could have been prevented under legislation, as a result of which the inquiry into the Omagh murders could have been further retarded.

I am not advancing my argument in a judgmental sense. I have noted the apprehensions outlined in the debate and what my what my hon. Friend the Minister said. Until proved otherwise, I shall work on the assumption that information will include documentation.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

We are anxious about the red beret tendency. I speak on behalf of the black homburg tendency. In fact, I am probably the only Member of Parliament these days who wears a black homburg .

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Shame.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene? He made a very discourteous intervention.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) cannot intervene on an intervention.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am a victim of my own quadratics. It is impossible to intervene on an intervention. That is a mathematical improbability. Is there is a Northern Ireland equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus? Could it be the man on the Newtownards omnibus? Would that work figuratively; would it work idiomatically in Northern Ireland or even quadratically?

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

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am part of the trilby brigade. However, I recognise the validity of his argument. It is a fundamental point. Do I think that the man on the street, the man on the Clapham omnibus or the man driving his lorry around Crossmaglen are different from one another? I do not think so. Such men work in different circumstances and are subject to different pressures. They have different attitudes to many matters, including political life. What they have in common, however, is a sense of justice and, perhaps without rationalising it in the way

that we do to our own boredom, the ability to make a proper judgment on the foot of good horse sense. I regard people on the Clapham omnibus in the way.

I have the same high regard for those on the Policing Board. I have heard it said that powers cannot be given to such boards, because they are not au fait with legal points and are not fully educated in the niceties of this, that or the other. That is the fatal mistake because we are talking about integrity. If we do not assume that integrity for the people of the board, the Bill will not work. I recognise that the integrity of some people from different organisations may be questioned. Such apprehensions are reasonable, but surely we must overcome them, if the community that we represent must do so. The Bill must work for reasons that the Minister gave. Although I believe that it will be impossible to give information properly without documentation, I will not push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

clause 18, page 12, line 10, after first 'Board', insert

', if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest,'.

Although I had not anticipated it at the outset, the amendment follows on neatly from the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh when he was positing the question whether the persons on the board can be regarded as reasonable men. He suggested that, despite the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland—you will appreciate, Mr. Gale, that the references to berets of different hue are references to adherence to different paramilitary organisations—it is safe to assume that everyone is a reasonable person. The hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we have to make that assumption. It is a working assumption that regularly has to be made in Northern Ireland but, because of the existence of those organisations, tendencies and histories, there is a strong need for ensuring that safeguards are in place in case the assumption turns out to be inaccurate. We have only to consider the past year in Northern Ireland to see that there is plentiful evidence that the assumption that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would wish us to make is not always a safe or reliable assumption and that there is a need for safeguards.

It will be necessary for me to touch on provisions other than the proposed new section 33A(4). One of the difficulties of dealing with the Bill is that clauses 9, 18, 20 and 21 all hang together and are difficult to disentangle in parts. I shall resist the temptation to comment on the draftsmanship that has caused that tangled web. The amendment would apply to new section 33A(4). It would qualify the discretion given to the Chief Constable to supply information to the board. The reason why it is necessary to have some safeguard is that what may seem to be the safeguards in the Bill are not as robust as they would seem at first sight.

We shall come shortly to clause 22, which has a provision on disclosure of information that cites a number of grounds on which information ought not to be disclosed. When we were debating clause 9, we had a discussion about how the Bill is limiting the grounds on which information ought not to be disclosed, from the four that were set out in section 59 of the 2000 Act to the three that now appear in clause 22. If we look at new section 33A(2), it seems that

''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 any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1)'',

which then refers to the three grounds. At first sight, the proposed new section 76A(1)(a) seems to be clear, but it is not that clear. The reference to

''grounds on which information ought not to be disclosed''

does not, I am advised, mean that the information ought not to be disclosed. The reference to the Chief Constable not being required to disclose that information does not mean that he can, if he wishes, disclose the information. New section 76A(1)(a) merely sets out grounds on which information ought not to be disclosed; it does not say that the information must not be disclosed.

The possibility exists that the Chief Constable could at his discretion disclose information of the sort mentioned in what is to be new section 76A(1)(a). He could disclose information that would affect national security, which is sensitive, personal information or information that would be likely to prejudice proceedings that have been commenced in a court of law. The only safeguard is that we have what seems to be an untrammelled discretion in the Chief Constable to disclose information that is within those three categories. The only safeguard is that if the Chief Constable exercises his discretion to disclose, the matter goes to a special committee of the board.

I do not think that that is satisfactory, if my interpretation of the clause is correct. There should be safeguards. If the Chief Constable will be given discretion to disclose information that falls within the three grounds, there should be criteria on how discretion should be exercised. That is why I tabled the amendment, which would provide that the Chief Constable would be satisfied that supplying the information was in the public interest. That is not much of a limit on discretion, but I tabled the amendment in order to raise the issue and to ask for an explanation of the situation so that we may discover from the Minister what the provisions mean. If my interpretation is correct, I want her to tell us why the Government are introducing a system that would enable the disclosure of sensitive information relating to national security and matters that could prejudice legal proceedings.

The Government are creating an extremely dangerous situation, given the situation in Northern Ireland and the pressures on individuals that can exist—individuals might not be as trustworthy as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would like. We should hear a clear explanation of why the Government are doing that and the safeguards that they propose.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments related to whether individuals on the board were reasonable or not. Does he recognise that giving the power of discretion to the Chief Constable to respond to worries about a particular individual would put him in a politically invidious position when making decisions? I want clarification from the Minister that the committee will have sufficient cast-iron safeguards to make the right decisions. Putting the onus on the Chief Constable would be the wrong way to do things.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am largely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and we shall discuss later whether the committee will have adequate safeguards. The Chief Constable appears to be given untrammelled discretion to disclose information of such a sensitive nature. If safeguards and grounds on how to exercise discretion are not in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman is right that the Chief Constable could come under intolerable pressure and be put in an extremely invidious position. We know about the political pressures that can be brought to bear and the way in which parties have campaigned relentlessly to influence the way in which the police operate. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should focus on that rather than having such a Panglossian approach to the proposals.

The clause has opened the door to a dangerous situation in which serious pressure could be brought to bear on the Chief Constable. We are expecting the Chief Constable to have remarkable strength of character and remarkable fortitude. That might be an unwise assumption if there are no provisions that would make it easier for him to resist pressure. If the Government leave the discretion with the Chief Constable, it is important for criteria to be spelt out about how to exercise discretion. That would give the Chief Constable a basis on which to resist improper pressure.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall try to tempt the right hon. Gentleman down a path that I doubt he would be willing to follow. He was in some agreement with my previous intervention, but I would go further. We should try to create more confidence in the Policing Board and the committee that services it, as opposed, as opposed to putting the whole power and weight on the Chief Constable, as that would be an invidious position. If we can ensure that the board and the committee work well, and that the safeguards are in place, it would remove that responsibility, and that is how it should be.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I remarked in our sitting on Tuesday that the Policing Board, as presently constituted, was one of the unexpected successes of last year. Of course we would like to encourage and develop confidence in the operation of the board. It would help to build up that confidence if there were a clear framework for the board's powers and procedures, and if it were clearly set out in legislation how the powers can be exercised. It is undesirable to have a situation where the board is able, or may be tempted, to press a Chief Constable into areas into which it would be dangerous for the board to go. That is why the Government need to

think more carefully and clearly about how the board's discretions and powers will operate.

It would have been reasonable for the Government to maintain that matters relating to national security, sensitive personal matters—or personnel, depending on which way the word is spelt—or matters that could prejudice proceedings in court should be clearly identified and put to one side. That would have been a clear position, and the board would then have known precisely what could be done, and would not be tempted into dangerous waters. Instead, the Government have made it possible for the board to proceed into those dangerous waters. Where opportunities and powers exist, there might be a strong temptation to use them.

As things stand, the only safeguard is the character of the Chief Constable. We hope that that character will be robust enough to cope with the pressures that may be brought to bear, but it would have been better if it were reinforced by having some clear criteria set out in the legislation with regard to how that discretion should be exercised.

I think that I have said enough to suggest what the problem is. There is a tentativeness to my comments, because this subject needs to be teased out in greater detail. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

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

I did not intend to contribute to debate on this amendment, because I thought that I had said all that I wanted to say under the previous one. However, the right hon. Gentleman made a point directed at me, and I think that it merits an answer. He—''accused'' is the wrong word—suggested that I might be considering the powers of the board in an imbalanced way that might be against the protection of the Chief Constable. I want it to be clearly understood that I would not want a board or Chief Constable to come under the type of pressure that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I would, board-wise and in every other way, give every assistance in ensuring that that did not happen.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I know how such matters can work, and I, too, am concerned that the political, parliamentary and ministerial process be protected from that pressure. Experience has shown that such pressure applies not only to the Chief Constable and other members of the board, but throughout the system. I believe that many right hon. and hon. Members would share my apprehension about that. There is a line somewhere between leaving a Chief Constable stranded without proper protection and adopting the sort of approach to board memberships and operations that we had in the past, which actually contributed to getting us into some of the present problems.

Over many years, the composition of any board was based almost on a mathematical formula: a couple of castle Catholics and three garden centre Unionists, then a few lapsed members of the Alliance party were stuck on a board and called representatives of the people. Those members would sit there for years—

perhaps for decades—and they were not a functional part of the arrangements that they had to deal with.

Now we are at a different level and in a different situation. Snotty-nosed fellows like me from political parties are now on board—how dare anyone have thought of that in the past? There are also people from the grass roots of the community in Northern Ireland, warts and all. Those people have an enormous task to do. We must somehow get a line—a median—between leaving a Chief Constable without protection and falling into the position of appointing people to a board yet having others decide what they may or may not know, or do. For that reason, it is important that the amendments be discussed. Enormous strength will be needed in the political process in future to keep the board, the relationship with the Chief Constable and the policing process all on the right track.

There is, of course, another dimension. Powers will at some point be devolved to the same political parties as exist now, give or take the loss of a few seats in whatever direction, and Ministers—I do not know their names—will be in charge of policing and the criminal justice system. The Assembly in the north of Ireland will control and operate policing and justice in the same way as responsibility for that now resides in Parliament. Given the experience of my lifetime, if I were asked which I preferred, and which I thought had more chance of being successful in future, I would opt for the devolution process.

The political process in Northern Ireland and the arrangements surrounding it will come of age; it has the capacity, the integrity and the courage to take on the responsibility. There will be risks. I do not have to spell those out; we all know what they are. There will be difficulties and dangers, too. We have agreed that we are going down the road of devolution, but the question is: when can that be done? I have always been in favour of it, all through the years when no one would agree with me, not even the opposition—although I never expected them to get an agreement in their own party. I have always taken that view. A crucial element of this—and, indeed, of all relevant legislation—is that it should be rightly geared so that devolution can work.

It is depressing that in 2003 we are rewriting the legislation of 2000 in terms of what could and should have been done then. Where are those who knew better? I served on a Committee that considered a criminal justice review, and it was a long, tedious, hard process. If anybody likes a little bet, I will bet with them that the legislation that came out of that review will be subject to further legislation, just as the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is.

All of us face this problem: if we are going to legislate properly here, we must consider the future. That is why I listened with great interest to what was said about the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I have a lot of sympathy with his comments on it. I make it clear that I will use my political influence to protect not only the Chief Constable but the board and the entire process of making policing right.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The difficulty I have is that you have rightly ruled that you do not want a clause stand part debate, Mr. Gale. I will therefore do my level best to weave my general concerns into my remarks on the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman may take it from the preceding debate that a degree of flexibility is available.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was about to say that I needed to begin my comments where the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh left off, and that I was racking my brains about how I could get back to the amendment from there, Mr. Gale. However, the hon. Gentleman made some points that I wish to respond to—albeit briefly—so I will take up your invitation to do so.

The starting point for this and any general debate needs to be—to quote the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—the ''snotty-nosed politicians''. I am concerned because so much of the debate is focused on the activists and protagonists of the various groupings, factions and communities in Northern Ireland; the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. As an Englishman, my experience of Northern Ireland is considerable but limited, and I accept that it is nothing like as great as that of people who have lived there all their lives. However, it has always been my view that the overwhelming majority of whichever faction or community one chooses to talk about are ordinary law-abiding people who go about their daily lives and want none of the activism. When we have a debate of this sort in which it is said that there is this and that faction who must be reassured, so we must do this or that, what worries me is the risk of overlooking the need to reassure the law-abiding majority in all the communities.

Those people require a reassurance different from that which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights in connection with the activists of the various communities. They want to be reassured that the snotty-nosed politicians are not going to interfere in the rule of law—that the politics of policing will not so much dominate the ordinary quiet policing and the rule of law, and that the rest of the UK will not happily take for granted the idea that those will be subservient to the infighting of the politicians.

All Committee members are politicians, so we know what can happen when politicians get their fingers on something. We cannot say that we are all utterly reasonable, because we are not all utterly reasonable. There would not be a Labour party if all of us were, because all the reasonable politicians belong to my party, because that is where reasonableness lies. [Laughter.] That response is exactly what I wanted, because I was making that point in order to demonstrate something: there can be no objective definition of reasonableness when politicians are let loose on an issue. To let us loose, with two different definitions of reasonableness, on the policing of Northern Ireland so that we can all interfere in it for our own political ends is very dangerous. It makes me nervous when I see the number of councillors on English police authorities, but at least here there is also a serious dose of magistrates. I have always taken that to be an attempt to balance the wishes of the articulate

few activists in a community with those of the silent majority who do not want interference, or for the police authorities to be rigged.

My answer to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is that we should not be going so far down that route. The Policing Board should not be composed of politicians able to interfere in any way that they choose. My view has nothing to do with the politics of Northern Ireland; it is merely an observation of what happens when politicians have too much power over the rule of law.

Hon. Members need only to examine the history books. Sooner or later, if politicians are left to their own devices, the rule of law will be busily undermined. It is happening at the moment, and if they think that this country will not be affected, hon. Members have only to consider the suggestion that Parliament should write guidance for judges on how the law should be interpreted. I will say no more on the subject, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that this country's politicians are immune from wanting to interfere with the rule of law, he should consider what is happening in Parliament.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I really did not want to intervene in this debate, but my hon. Friend has unwittingly provoked me. He mentioned the role of magistrates in English police authorities, and I happen to be a profound believer in the value of the lay magistracy, which is the jewel in the crown of the English judicial system. Would he care to tell us whether he agrees that the general affairs of Northern Ireland would be improved if it had a comparable lay magistracy?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. No, the hon. Gentleman would not. I am beginning to feel that I have inadvertently handed the Committee the key to Pandora's box. I said earlier that I was prepared to allow reasonably wide-ranging debate on the clause, but I will not permit a debate on all human life—and we appear to be moving into that arena. I should be grateful if you would confine yourself to the clause, Mr. Wilshire, even if not the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I try never to disagree with the Chair.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Don't.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I won't, but saying that I would not care to comment on what my hon. Friend said would be factually incorrect, because I would. However, I am happy to accept your ruling, Mr. Gale. Perhaps we will continue that discussion at lunchtime.

The Minister raised an issue in the first debate that prompted my point of order. She said that I was making too much of what she described as an ''informal procedure''. She referred to the process as ordinary and day-to-day. Somebody asks a question, the Chief Constable gives an answer and the process continues in that way. I was going to make this point in our stand part debate, but I will make it now: my experience of the ordinary day-to-day procedure of trying to obtain information is that there is no statute to back up that informal activity. A clause that makes something a legal requirement is not informal; it is

deeply formal. Therefore, I do not accept that the clause represents day-to-day business.

If the Minister is saying that such informal activity in Northern Ireland requires the force of law, I am worried. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann, when introducing the amendment, returned to the assumptions of reasonableness. If we are talking about informal day-to-day activity, the entire Bill makes an assumption of unreasonableness. We cannot even, so it would appear, have informal discussion about something without the force of law behind it. That is totally unreasonable. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann are right to try to rework the clause. There will not be a clause stand part debate, so I would be grateful if the Minister would go slightly beyond the amendment and explain why, if we are discussing only day-to-day activities, it is deemed necessary to have a statute governing such issues.

As for amendment No. 89, I am in the same position as I was with the argument of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I am wholly with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann in general terms, but I am a little concerned about the wording of the amendment. Surely his argument was about the rights of the individual rather than the public interest. I am worried about the need to protect the affected individual rather than the public.

If the Chief Constable were to say, ''Hang on a minute; subsection (5) refers to 'information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger','' the qualification that it would be useful to add to subsection (4) is that:

''The Chief Constable may, instead of supplying the information to the Board, supply it to the committee''

if he were satisfied that it was in the interests of an affected individual not to supply it to the board. I hope that that I understood the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman was saying correctly. If so, I support him wholeheartedly. I can imagine a situation in which the public interest could be deemed to be greater than the interests of the affected individual—and that could lead to the exact opposite of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

We had a long debate about reasonableness on the previous amendment—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

My hon. Friend is taking us on to difficult ground. He said that a conflict might arise between the public interest and the interests of an individual. I am worried about that. Will he say which interest should prevail? Should it be the public interest or the interests of the individual? What is ''the public interest''? Is that a term of art? Is it defined anywhere?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If I were the mover of the amendment, I would be better placed to answer my hon. Friend. I too am a little concerned about the phrase. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann may be a better person to answer such a question. I have flagged up the fact that to my mind, there can be a conflict of interest between the public good and the individual's good. The debate is about an individual's

interest, not the public interest. We must always be mindful of the reasonable silent majority of people who want to get on with their lives. We also must bear in mind that whatever we think about individuals, they have rights and need to be protected.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the amendment might tilt the balance too far in favour of the board and against the Chief Constable—and against the individual. I remain deeply worried that even with the safeguard of the amendment, if it were accepted, we would not have gone as far as we should. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

Even if the amendment were agreed, we would end up with a section of an Act that said that there would be no prohibition on releasing sensitive information if, for example, the Chief Constable were worried that the release of that information would do harm, whether to the public or the individual, and if he released stuff that the Act said that he ought not release. Subsection (6) of new section 33A does not say whether the public or the individual interest is covered by new section 76A(1), and it does not say that the Chief Constable may withhold the information; all it says is that the Chief Constable must tell someone that he has done it. However, by then the harm would have been done.

Even if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were agreed, I do not believe that there would be sufficient safeguards for either the public or the individual interest. The situation is a mystery to me. These are day-to-day matters. As the Minister said in a previous debate, this is not about the formality of preparing a report or conducting an investigation. However, there may be some requirement to pass on information that might hurt somebody. The Minister has admitted that we are talking about an informal day-to-day activity, yet the Chief Constable will be forced to produce information that could harm somebody, and all he has to do is tell someone about that.

I would be interested to know why the Chief Constable is required to tell somebody. I can only assume that that is because the Secretary of State may need to make arrangements through the security services to ensure that the named person could have some physical protection so that they were not assassinated. Is that the purpose of passing on the information? I cannot see why it would matter otherwise, because the harm would already be done by releasing the information. In fact, it is admitted in the clause, as follows:

''information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger''.

It is admitted in the Bill that that activity would put someone in danger, but no safeguard, other than telling the Secretary of State, is provided. That seems quite extraordinary.

Subsection (1) says:

''The Chief Constable shall supply the board with such information as the Board may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of its functions.''

I know why that is included. I support the phrases ''in connection with'' and ''the exercise of . . . its functions'', which will stop the board going on a

fishing expedition to find juicy information that may or may not be relevant. Perhaps the Minister could tell us who would be the arbiter of a difference of opinion between the board, which may say that the requirement arose from the exercise of its functions, and the Chief Constable, who may say, ''Oh no it's not, it's going far beyond your remit; this is a fishing expedition.'' Nowhere do I see a reference to that—unless I have not read the rest of the Bill correctly or fully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) asked about a conflict between interpretations, and here is a conflict between what is reasonable and unreasonable in the job that is being done. Nowhere do I see who would act as the referee. I am not a lawyer; I am simply trying to get my mind round whether judicial review applies to the issue, or whether this is an objective matter of having to disclose the information before deciding whether it is necessary to disclose it. If the board admits that it should not have asked for the information after it is disclosed, it cannot undisclose it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I do not wish to interfere with the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I think that he will find that a lot of the relevant issues are covered by clause 20.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

You will be relieved to hear that I was about to interrupt my own flow, Mr. Gale. I had explained the last point that I wanted to make, and I look forward to hearing the answers. I shall take your guidance—but if the answers are not satisfactory I may return to them later.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

You have kindly allowed us to range widely over the clause, Mr. Gale—you say that that is your usual custom, and I have no reason whatever to doubt you. I would like the Minister to answer a question founded on the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. What are the implications of bringing into law words that require the Chief Constable to do something that a reasonable person would think he would have to do anyway? We all know that there are implications and legal consequences of bringing requirements into law, which those who frame legislation did not necessarily intend.

My attention is concentrated on the words ''the Board may require'', which are the key words on which the other actions in the clause are founded. How may the board require something to happen? Boards and committees usually require something to happen in one of two ways: they either reach a consensus about a decision, or they vote on a decision. If a committee cannot reach a decision about a matter, that results in a stalemate or deadlock. If the board could not reach a decision on a contentious matter—I am sure that that could happen—what would happen if a significant minority of board members decided that they wanted the Chief Constable to supply information?

I ask that question not for a frivolous purpose but because we have already discovered that the Bill will introduce legal possibilities that did not exist under the 2000 Act. I do not want to cover old ground, because

you would rule me out of order, Mr. Gale, but the Minister's response to points made about clause 1 suggested that the Bill would introduce grounds for judicial review that were not present under the 2000 Act. I do not have anything in principle against introducing new grounds for judicial review, and the Committee should not either. However, questions are vexed by legal procedures in the context of political life in Northern Ireland, and we should think carefully about the possible introduction of new procedures. I understand that the moment a judicial review or a new legal action is introduced, any action that the Chief Constable may want to take would be impossible because of that judicial review or legal action. That has political implications.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am slightly disturbed by what my hon. Friend is saying, although he speaks extremely fairly. Is he aware that judicial review, along with human rights litigation, is the largest area of litigation growth in the United Kingdom legal and judicial system? Is he comfortable about welcoming more judicial review? Should that not be a matter of considerable concern? Should we not live in an era of negotiation and conflict resolution rather than litigation?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I believe that you, Mr. Gale, would rightly rule me out of order if I went a long way down the avenue on which my hon. Friend is tempting me to travel. I was discussing these matters only the previous evening with my learned wife. You would certainly rule me out of order if I were to repeat that conversation. However, that discussion with my wife, who is a lawyer, made me think carefully about some of the measures in the Bill, and I was just thinking about it in light of the clause. Judicial review has not only legal but political implications in Northern Ireland. If a member of the board were to go outside the board in some way, and were to suggest to a member of the press that a judicial review action was about to be launched, that might be written up as a story, and would become part of the political play in Northern Ireland. Important matters are at stake in the clause.

When I referred to those members of the board who might be entitled to argue that, although the board cannot reach a majority decision, they are a minority and may require information from the Chief Constable, I was not being frivolous. I will not attempt to discuss clause 11, because you would rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Gale, but other clauses relate to what a number—in some cases a minority—on the board may or may not decide to do. It is therefore pertinent to ask what would happen if there were a deadlock on the board and a large minority of members asked the Chief Constable for a decision. Would they be entitled to take legal action if they believed that the Chief Constable was being obstructive?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

A number of points have been made about the complexity of the provisions. Hon. Members from all parties have supported one another's

arguments in many ways. I have found the debate helpful in my thinking about the provisions. Many of the points relate to matters that we discussed earlier and to issues that we will debate when we come to clause 20 and other clauses, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Gale. I said in earlier debates that I would reflect on some of those issues. The Committee will understand that I want to reflect on the related clauses as a package. I shall take into account and note carefully the comments made in these discussions.

I shall quickly deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe. In relation to a minority, if the board could not agree, the majority view would prevail. The minority does not have a locus in that respect. The Chief Constable would not have to respond to even a sizable minority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, so far, the board has, with some of its most difficult decisions, operated on the basis of consensus and with unanimity. However, it has on occasion also reached conclusions after a vote, but as I have said, the majority view would prevail in those circumstances.

On the points that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made when speaking to the amendment, I have profound sympathy with his argument, and the way in which he described the pressures that might be brought to bear on a Chief Constable. I understand why he tabled the amendment, and I am grateful to him for doing so because it has allowed us to have a useful debate. The Chief Constable has a singular role to play in policing in the United Kingdom. It is a lonely role, and a job that carries enormous responsibilities. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the Chief Constable has a high degree of operational responsibility, as Patten would have put it. Of the three grounds of referral that we have discussed, he is well able to exercise his discretion about sensitive personnel matters and in matters before the courts, as it is his officers who bring the charges against persons appearing before the courts.

As hon. Members will recall, the Government adopted the Patten recommendation that the Secretary of State should no longer have the power to give guidance to the Chief Constable on any policing matter. We have repealed section 39 of the 1998 Act. However, it is still possible for the Chief Constable to seek the views of the Secretary of State on any matter relating to national security. After all, as Patten said, and the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Chief Constable is accountable to the Secretary of State, not to the board, on national security matters. That is an important constitutional relationship to keep in mind.

Section 76A, which we will be debating later, sets out the grounds on which information may be withheld. Under the section that we are discussing, the Chief Constable is asked to make a judgment about whether information should not be disclosed on any of those grounds. If he judges that information should not be disclosed, he is not obliged—there is no requirement upon him—to disclose it. However, because the matter touches on one of those grounds, that does not make it compulsory for him to withhold

it. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. The discretion lies with the Chief Constable.

The effect of the clause is to give the Chief Constable the option of sharing the information with the small committee that we shall be talking about shortly, if that seems to him to be appropriate. I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands that perfectly well, and that his concern is that undue pressure might be brought to bear upon the Chief Constable to go beyond what he might deem reasonable to disclose. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh deplored the idea that any such situation may arise, and I share his views.

The amendment proposes that the Chief Constable should be required to make a judgment that disclosure is in the public interest before he shares information with the board. That is what he is already required to do under, for example, new section 33A(2), under which he is required to make a judgment about whether

''information ought not be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).''

The grounds all deal with elements of public interest, such as national security and matters before the courts.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Would the hon. Lady accept that the status quo provided for circumstances in which the Chief Constable could decline to provide a report? When we debated that on Tuesday, she was gracious enough to say that, although in the Bill the four grounds will be reduced, she would reconsider that matter between now and when we discuss the Bill on Report. I welcomed her saying as much, but I should be reassured if she would say that that is still her position.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

As I said earlier, I want to consider what has been said from both sides of the Room on the matter. Some serious and probing questions have been put and I want to consider the points that have been made. I say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the amendment would not add significantly to the standard against which the Chief Constable is currently required to exercise his judgment. I appreciate that the amendment may well have been tabled in a probing way, in which case it has proved to be valuable.

I turn to the more general debate about the clause. I have outlined the Government's thinking behind their introduction of it. It was prepared at the board's request, it was proposed in the review of policing arrangements that I took forward last summer, and it takes into account the board's first year of experience. It gives the board a general right of access to information from the police, subject to the same safeguards that apply elsewhere in the legislation.

I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, because it was I who introduced the concept of reasonableness. It is not in the clause because we amended it out. That produced a lively discussion, not all of which pleased you, Mr. Gale. I will seek to avoid provoking you.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I wish to sustain the Minister. She was right to introduce the concept of reasonableness in her

formative thinking, and I urge her not to abandon it as it is a valuable mindset.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I was going to say that the concept of reasonableness of the hon. Member for Spelthorne—he suggested that there would not be a Labour party if everyone was reasonable—should be balanced with his judgment in the choice of his ties. I welcome the tie that he is sporting today, but I know that considerations of a sartorial kind are not a matter for the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman made a cogent argument about my suggestion that we are talking about informal arrangements and everyday matters. I want to draw his attention to the responsibilities of the board. In the 2000 Act, the board is specifically required to secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland. The relevant section makes it clear that the board is required to monitor the performance of the police: it is required to keep itself informed about, for example, trends and patterns in crime or in recruitment to the police and the police support staff. There will be frequent discussions between the board and senior police officers, and they will work with the board to provide that sort of information. Situations may arise in which the board asks for a piece of information that gives the police cause to pause about whether it should be disclosed.

As I said earlier, the request for the clause from the board was cast clearly in terms of information and everyday circumstances. I hope that I have reassured Committee members who have had concerns about the clause and its relation to other clauses and powers and to the delicate relationships between the Chief Constable, the board and the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will not press the amendment to a Division, and that the Committee will give the clause a fair wind.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister is right to classify the amendment as one that tries to tease out the situation that it addresses. I understand the criticisms of the form of the amendment that were made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

The amendment was tabled to give an opportunity to focus attention on a serious problem. Like the Minister, I found the discussion helpful in terms of clarifying matters, and I am now in a better position to describe the problem than when I first presented the amendment. What will be section 76A(1), if the Bill reaches the statute book, mentions three areas where information ought not to be disclosed. The first of them is national security.

By virtue of the way that the legislation operates, if something falls within any of those three territories of information, the Chief Constable has three options. He can refuse to disclose the information, seek the Secretary of State's advice—as set out in clause 9—or go ahead and make a disclosure. For the reasons that I gave at the outset, that concerns me. The Chief Constable may weave his way through the Act and disclose information that ought not to be disclosed. That would create a novel situation, which would have to be handled with care. Of course, we hope that the Chief Constable would handle it with care, but the

only safeguard in the Bill is that he must report to the Secretary of State that he has disclosed information that ought not to be disclosed because it would prejudice national security or the conduct of court proceedings, or because it is of a sensitive personal nature.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The right hon. Gentleman has rehearsed with total fidelity the three circumstances in which the Bill would allow the Chief Constable to seek refuge from the need to provide a report. What is his view of the restoration of the fourth circumstance—that the disclosure of information would

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

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I would be delighted to give my view on that at considerable length; indeed, I did so at our previous sitting, when I said that the Government were wrong to remove that paragraph. In my view, they did so as a result of a faulty reading of the Patten report, which they should have considered more closely and carefully. We may return to the issue, and I would be happy to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, however, I will focus on my current point.

There are three grounds forbidding disclosure, although my point would apply if there were one, two, three, four, five or six. The Chief Constable can weave his way through them and disclose information. The only safeguard is that he must tell the Secretary of State that he has done so, and that concerns me, given the situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would be concerned about such provisions in any jurisdiction. I am particularly concerned about the position in Northern Ireland, however, because pressures might be brought to bear on the Chief Constable. Indeed, I expect that various persons will bring pressure to bear on him in a particularly persistent and threatening manner, for reasons other than the public interest. That might even be the case with the board as presently constituted, let alone any future board, whatever our concerns in that regard.

That is my concern, and we should reinforce the Chief Constable's ability to exercise his discretion. There should be grounds to which he can refer. Of course, there is a general consideration, and the Bill gives him discretion, which he can say he has exercised on this, that or the other ground. However, it will be easier for him to exercise his discretion properly if the Bill contains provisions to which he can point.

The Minister said that the Chief Constable could refer to the three grounds in what will become section 76A(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but he is clearly allowed to disclose information covered by those three conditions. If he says that he will not disclose information because it affects national security, he will be met with the answer, ''But you are entitled to disclose it, so why won't you? That's not a good enough reason.'' It is necessary that we give him other good reasons that he can use to resist such pressure.

I do not want to pursue questions of reasonableness or to discuss what it means. However, there is a fundamental difference in our outlook on this issue, and that was encapsulated in the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I accept that he was entirely sincere when he said that any influence that he might have would always be exercised to protect the operation of the system. However, when he said that the board would have the capacity and integrity to handle the task, he clearly believes that every board—present or future—will have that. Not everyone will share his confidence in human nature. Some people may have that basic outlook. I will not go into the point in any detail, or present it in the manner of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, because there are also people in the Labour party who accept the existence of original sin. Such acceptance is not confined solely to Members on the Opposition Benches.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I will not trespass into discussing original sin, but before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, will he tell us why he used the words ''in the public interest''? I defer to the right hon. Gentleman not only as a Privy Councillor but as a superior lawyer to me. Is ''in the public interest'' a term of art or did he include it merely to enjoy its general linguistic meaning?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

That is a challenge. I cannot recall exactly what was in my mind in the hasty few seconds in which the amendment was drafted, but the phrase probably occurred to me as a term of art. I do not wish to pursue the matter too far. I noticed a frisson in the Committee when I used the phrase ''original sin'', but there are many others that would have encapsulated my point.

There are fundamentally different approaches to such matters, and they are highly relevant to the framing of legislation. Most legislation is framed on the basis that we deal with people who are not perfect and we try to make provision for situations in which problems arise. We try to protect the public interest in the broad sense, and we are trying to protect the institutions framed in the Bill from the pressures and abuses to which they may be subjected. That is a particular problem with these provisions.

I hope that the Minister will reflect further. I realise that the provisions are complex, and I hope that we will discuss the matter again. However, to facilitate future discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we come to clause 20 I must point out that although, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said earlier, some clauses are interrelated—that is why I allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate this morning—the Committee is acutely aware of the pressure of time, and there are a significant number of clauses still to be debated. Although clause 20 is lengthy and has attracted several amendments, it is specific. Hereinafter, the Committee should stick rigidly to the matters directly under discussion.

Clause 20 - Restriction on disclosure of information

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in

clause 20, page 13, line 20, leave out from 'committee' to 'that' in line 21.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 73 to 76.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The amendments make minor corrections to the provision that deals with the creation of an offence for improper disclosure of sensitive information. Amendment No. 72 clarifies the fact that it does not matter whether the committee or the board received sensitive information from the Chief Constable under section 59, new section 33A or via some other route. The crucial factor is that the Chief Constable has specifically identified it as sensitive, and its further disclosure is therefore restricted.

Amendment No. 73 makes it clear that the offence of improper disclosure of sensitive information applies irrespective of whether the information is passed to the board's special committee by the person appointed to conduct an inquiry into section 60 of the 2000 Act, or by a person engaged to assist the inquirer in his work.

Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 ensure that the terms of the clause are broad enough to encompass all individuals who may have access to sensitive information. At present, the clause is framed on the assumption that staff of the Policing Board will be seconded to support the person appointed to conduct an inquiry under section 60, and that it is therefore only they who need to be bound by the provision of the new offence of improper disclosure of sensitive information. However, there could be others engaged to support an inquiry, and it is important that the same provisions bind them too. Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 therefore clarify the fact that the offence extends to any person who is engaged to assist in the conduct of an inquiry.

Amendment No. 76 makes it clear that the board's power to publish a report under section 59 of the 2000 Act is circumscribed by the offence of improper disclosure of sensitive information created by the clause. I hope that that is succinct enough to comply with your ruling, Mr. Gale, and I look forward to responding to questions.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have a couple of queries. It is probably because I am not a lawyer that I cannot quite get my mind round certain matters. I can see the point of amendment Nos. 73 and 74 entirely, and have no difficulty. Similarly, I think that I can grasp amendment No. 75. However, I have a query about amendment No. 72. Although I readily accept what the Minister said, which is that the amendment is designed to clarify the situation, I cannot quite grasp why leaving out the words

''under section 33A(6) or 59(4H)''

clarifies the provisions rather than making them more vague. My feeling is that taking out that specific reference makes the requirement much more vague than giving the exact detail. I should be grateful if the Minister could help me on that.

My more substantial worry is about Government amendment No. 76. I have tried to get my head round that. Section 59(5) of the 2000 Act says:

''The Board may arrange, or require the Chief Constable to arrange, for a report under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate.''

There will be a complication. The Government appear to be want to qualify those provisions by inserting the words

''Subject to section 74A(6)'',

which refers to the qualifications in the clause about who may receive the information. Am I right in thinking that if we insert those words in the 2000 Act, no report can be published, or is it the case that a report may not or ought not to be published? As the provisions stand, I have a feeling that the Minister is producing something that totally prohibits the publication of a report under those circumstances. The Minister might intend that. If so, it would be helpful to know why she wants to impose a total ban. However, maybe I have misunderstood. If so, I should be pleased to hear an explanation.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

If I understand him, the hon. Gentleman's first point relates to amendment 72. He believes that what we are proposing does not clarify the situation. I said earlier that the clause makes it clear that it does not matter whether the committee or the board receives the sensitive information, or under what provision it arrives at the board. For example, when I talked about any other route, I meant that the Secretary of State may direct the Chief Constable to supply information to the committee. The offence would not cover that at present, but the amendment makes it clear that it should. It was our intention that that should be the case, but sometimes we do not achieve our intentions.

As for amendment 76, the idea is not that a report could not be published; it is just that the published version may not include the sensitive information that has been identified by the Chief Constable in those terms.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for that explanation because it compounds my concern. There is no reference to an edited version of a report. The clause does not say that if section 74A(6) applies, that information may not be in the report. As I understand it, the clause means that if the provision applies, section 59(5) of the 2000 Act, saying that a report may be published as the board sees appropriate, is no longer relevant. That is how I read it, rather than the Minister's interpretation. If the Minister said that the clause meant that certain things must not be included in the report, I would be content with that. My understanding of the clause is different from the Minister's presentation.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am confident that the provision as it is written does exactly what the hon. Member is saying. I am not a lawyer either. Section 59(5) of the 2000 Act provides:

''The Board may arrange, or require the Chief Constable to arrange, for a report under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate.''

The board would need to take account of the requirement that sensitive information should not be disclosed. That question was sharp and to the point.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have reflected on that and, again, I do not believe that that explanation is sufficient. If the Minister is relying on

''such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate''

and notwithstanding all the other requirements, if the board deems it to be appropriate, it can still go ahead and publish because the Board would be deeming what is appropriate on those occasions, notwithstanding what has been written. The more I think about this provision, the more I become convinced that what the Government are trying to do will not be achieved with this clause.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. My view is that the new clause, as written, does, with the strengthening of these amendments, provide for the safeguards that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. I accept that he has concerns about the drafting of the clause. Like other members of this Committee, I have high regard for parliamentary draftsmen. Drafting is a particular skill. One reason why we have legislative processes is because we do not always get things right.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not want to prolong what is a narrow point. After having read the exchange that we have just had, will the Minister write to the Committee giving the legal justification for why I am wrong? I am happy to be proved wrong on this occasion. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot get my mind around the matter. However, as a layman, I remain convinced that the clause will not do what the Minister seeks. It would be helpful for the Committee to have a considered written explanation as to why I need not worry.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am more than happy to undertake to do that, and will seek to write to members of the Committee before the conclusion of our deliberations next week.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 73, in

clause 20, page 13, line 26, after 'section 60', insert

'or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry'.

No. 74, in

clause 20, page 13, line 32, leave out from 'is' to 'except' in line 33 and insert

'assisting or has assisted in the conduct of the inquiry'.

No. 75, in

clause 20, page 13, line 34, leave out

'member of the staff of the Board'

and insert 'person'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

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

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in

clause 20, page 13, line 38, leave out from 'Ombudsman' to end of line 39 and insert

'or an officer of the Ombudsman in connection with the exercise of any function of the Ombudsman'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in

clause 20, page 14, line 16, leave out from 'Ombudsman' to end of line 17 and insert

'or an officer of the Ombudsman in connection with the exercise of any function of the Ombudsman;'.

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

I note the good advice that you have given us, Mr. Gale. The two amendments cover an anomaly within the legislation concerning the ombudsman. The ombudsman or an officer of the ombudsman would gain access to sensitive information from an inquirer when carrying out his or her functions in connection with not only investigations, but police policies and practices.

Earlier, the Minister pointed out the functions of the ombudsman in specified criminal and disciplinary matters. As it stands, the assumption is that there would not be circumstances in which the disclosure of sensitive matters would not impinge on either disciplinary or criminal matters. I disagree with that because I can envisage such circumstances. I fully accept that sensitive information must be handled sensitively. It is also important to ensure that those who need to know such information receive it. That is why subsection (5) is so essential. It provides that sensitive information can be passed to several people, such as the Secretary of State and relevant members of the board.

It is obviously important that a person who should have such information is the police ombudsman. The Bill allows the ombudsman to have access to such information, but only in connection with an investigation by that person into police policies and practices. It does not provide that he or she can have such information in relation to their other functions in connection with criminal and disciplinary matters as specified by the Minister.

The ombudsman does not merely have functions in connection with police policies and practices. These functions are important and cover various aspects, not least criminal and disciplinary matters as well as police policies and practices. I cannot understand why the ombudsman should not have access to such matters. Section 51(8)(a) of the 2000 Act provides that the ombudsman can gain access to certain pieces of sensitive personnel information about police officers, a number of which are specified under the Act. Why then can she not gain access to other pieces of sensitive information for the purpose of any of her functions? I fail to understand why, although there may be good for reasons for that approach. If there are, I should like to hear about them. It is difficult to understand such an anomalous situation. Why cannot the ombudsman gain access to such information for the purposes of her investigations into police policies and practices and the entire range of their functions? The two amendments are an attempt to deal with that anomaly.

There is a further dimension, given the apprehension that exists about what could happen within the board. There could be circumstances in which people on the board might have access to sensitive information and matters could be excluded

from the ombudsman's remit. There might well be a simple reason for that.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I have no strong views about the amendments but I want to ascertain whether I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. Would the amendments widen provisions for the access to information from information accessed only

''in connection with an investigation''

to information accessed for the ''exercise of any function''? The phrase

''in connection with an investigation''

limits the provision, and accessing information for the exercise of any function of the ombudsman must be a wider provision.

In the same way, using the phrase

''or an officer of the Ombudsman''

must mean that more persons than the ombudsman would be included. Does the hon. Gentleman want such widening of the clause?

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

No. It is not in terms of that. The point about the officer of the ombudsman applies to the work of any officer under someone with the functions and nature of the ombudsman. Why will information be available when the ombudsman considers police policies and practices but not when she considers such other functions as criminal and disciplinary matters, as the Minister mentioned? Disciplinary and criminal matters often involve sensitive information, but that will be restricted from the ombudsman although she would have the right to access the same information if she were examining police policies and practices. There is an anomaly in the Bill.

I might be missing something covered elsewhere in either the Bill or the 2000 Act. Perhaps I have this all wrong, and if I do I shall willingly take advice. I shall wait to hear what the Minister says.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

This is not a sticking point for my party, and we want to hurry along to reach other issues to which we shall devote more attention. Notwithstanding the able presentation of the amendments by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I cannot help but reach the interpretation that the amendments would widen the concept of supplying information

''in connection with an investigation''

and lead to the concept of supplying information in connection with

''the exercise of any function of the Ombudsman''.

An investigation is limited and defined, but ''any function'' can be considered to be only a wider definition.

I am not clear about why we need the words

''or an officer of the Ombudsman''

because any such officer would act under the umbrella authority of the ombudsman. Therefore, in a sense, the ombudsman's staff have the same authority as the ombudsman unless, as the law says, they are on a frolic of their own. If they are acting in an authorised way under the aegis of the ombudsman, surely they peddle the ombudsman's authority as their own. At the risk of

repeating myself, that is not a sticking point for my party, but it is certainly a matter of interest.

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

By way of explanation, I am seeking not a carte blanche but a widening of the functions. The alternative was to specify disciplinary and criminal matters, but then I would have had to specify all the matters for, and functions of, the ombudsman. Perhaps ''any function'' is too broad, but specifying the functions would have kept us here for a long time.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his position. He made his point well. The amendments are important to our deliberations, and were well worth tabling and arguing for. I do not mean that in a patronising sense; who am I to be patronising to a gentleman of his experience? I shall be as interested as he is in the Minister's reply, and I am glad that we had the opportunity to debate the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I remember a debate in the previous sitting about when a stand part debate begins and discussion on an amendment ends, and I have the same problem now. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh raises two points. The first is the extension of the protection of and/or restrictions on the ombudsman to the ombudsman's staff. That is part of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and raises issues about the staff of other people, which I would like to speak about at some stage. I shall be happy to keep my comments about the ombudsman's staff for a stand part debate, because other people are involved under other parts of the clause.

The other issue that the amendment raises is the definition of ''any function''. I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that to list the relevant functions would be a long and onerous job, but I do not think that we can leave the matter there. The clause is specific about the circumstances in which the ombudsman is covered. I could argue—although I will not, because I doubt that you would let me, Mr. Gale, and even if you did, it would take a long time—that if we are to extend the provision to list more than that narrow specified part of the ombudsman's work—perhaps all of it—we really should consider all the functions. To my mind, there are some cases which it would be inappropriate for the ombudsman to be brought in to, as some of her work has nothing to do with the issuing of formal reports. The formal stage—and that is what we are talking about—is, rightly, covered.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about any function being adequate for our purpose. A case needs to be advanced as to why the provisions should be extended beyond the narrow definition in the clause. He has not said why or to which areas it should be extended—and I argued that it should not be extended to everything. I wonder whether he can help me.

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

I cannot resist the temptation, although I should. I thought that I was fairly specific about why I tabled the amendment, and specified at

least two of the matters that the Minister had previously confirmed in relation to the functions. I should have thought that the Committee would have regarded it as unreasonable had I trotted out a definitive, and perhaps very substantial, list. I hope that that helps to clarify the hon. Gentleman's thinking.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. It helps me to the extent that the hon. Gentleman has said that there are two more areas that ought to be included. However, he goes on yet again to say that there are many more, but that he would not want to trot them out. Either he believes that the provision should cover any function of the ombudsman, which is what is stated in the amendment, or he does not. If he believes that the subsection should refer to any function, that is fine—but I do not. One could have a debate on that basis. If he is saying that he does not really refer mean any function, and refers instead to a long list, I think that we should have the list, so that we know what he means.

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

I simply point out that the functions of the ombudsman are specific and defined in law. I could transpose all of them into an amendment, but I prefer to concentrate on the few that the Minister mentioned. They are, however, specifically defined in the legislation, and both the hon. Gentleman and I may read them.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is exactly the point that I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman to see. The functions are already defined. Either he means all of them, in which case he does not need to mention two, or he means the two from the list that he mentioned. However, he then says that he means more than two, but not the whole list. I am trying to establish which of the functions from the list he means, because I want to vote with him.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

An unusual moment is about to occur, in which I disagree somewhat with my hon. Friend. Normally we are like Torvill and Dean.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. If the hon. Gentleman means that he is skating on thin ice, he may be right.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

You have knocked the wind out of me, Mr. Gale; I have almost lost my thread.

Where I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and where I may be disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, is as follows: there is a great danger that had the hon. Gentleman, who in his wisdom crafted the amendment, embarked on a schedule, a litany or a list, the item that he left out would have turned out to be crucial. I think that he is wise to avoid making a list and to express himself in general terms.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Given my age and my shape, I am neither Torvill nor Dean. I am, however, flattered that he might think that I am. One of the reasons why the great and the good of my party shoved me into the Whips Office, rather than on to the Front Bench proper, was in the hope that I might not say so much. I regularly find that the proper

Front-Bench Members do not necessarily agree with everything that I say—for which I keep apologising.

I shall return to what I have said and what my hon. Friend has underlined. If we are to vote sensibly on the amendment, we must know what the hon. Gentleman means. Which are the functions concerned? If he means all the functions, as he says in his amendment, I disagree with him; if only some of them, I ask him to let me know what they are and I will willingly support him. I will do what I can to help.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I feel that we in danger of making this into rough ground. I hope that we can get over it relatively lightly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh for tabling the amendments and for drawing attention to a clause that may be too narrowly drawn. We will soon debate, although not for too long, the new responsibilities that we will add to the police ombudsman's office. My hon. Friend has made a useful point about her wider role. I do not think that hon. Members ought to be too concerned at this stage about exactly what we are talking about. The responsibilities of the ombudsman's office are clearly laid down in the 2000 Act and underpinned by the 1998 Act. The amendments are as clear as can be on that point. Section 66 of the 2000 Act requires the board and others to provide the ombudsman with the information that she needs to carry out her functions, and it is right that they should do so. I agree with my hon. Friend that the provisions in clause 20 should not cut across that.

The ombudsman's office already has access to sensitive information. It has a proven record of managing such information properly and of protecting its sensitive aspects. On reflection, I think that the provision may have been drawn too narrowly, but I will not encourage the Committee to accept my hon. Friend's amendment. I wish to reflect further and take advice from parliamentary counsel before examining how the Bill should be amended in this respect, but I undertake to examine the matter and consider addressing it on Report.

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

I thank the Minister for her comments. I will visit the Table Office to obtain for the hon. Member for Spelthorne the legislation that contains all the specific functions.

The Minister confirms the key point: however badly drafted the amendments are—

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

They are not badly drafted.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that they are very well drafted, but the implication seems to be that they are inadequate.

The ombudsman must not be put in a position where she is investigating something that is excluded from her remit because the provision is not wide enough to allow her to pursue the functions that she has been given under this legislation and other legislation.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The hon. Gentleman is being too self-deprecating. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about the amendments: I think that they are excellent and I want to support

them. The hon. Gentleman may be satisfied by the Minister's reply, and by her willingness to revisit the matter and perhaps to tell us something new on Report. However, if he is in any doubt about whether the Minister will do so, let him stand by the amendments now and I will vote with him in favour of them.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have every respect for the Minister; she has been doing a very good job in one of the most difficult Northern Ireland offices. I cast no aspersion on her when I say that bitter experience has taught me that in relation to policing, one does not rely on what may happen on Report.

I would love to be confident enough to say in a gentlemanly manner to the Minister, ''Yes, I will leave it for you to consider, and I hope that on Report you will see things as well as I see them.'' However, the world we live in is not like that. There are things like guillotines, which are applied on Report, and which might prevent us from reaching this point in the legislation.

There are factors at work outside the parliamentary process that may prevent the type of deliberation on Report that one would always like to hope for in a parliamentary process. I will not put my trust in the idea of the matter being addressed on Report on the Floor of the House of Commons ever again—although I wish to make it clear that that is not because I lack confidence in the Minister, or am casting any aspersions on her. I beg to ask leave to press the amendments to a Division.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

In that case, I ask my hon. Friends in the Committee to resist the amendments, although I do so with regret.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before I put the Question, I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that only one amendment is under discussion, and that is the one on which I shall put the Question.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 12.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in

clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'on' to end to line 25 and insert—

'(a) conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; or

(b) summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in

clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'a' to end of line 25 and insert

'term of imprisonment not exceeding three years'.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I hope that I shall be able to deal with the amendments briefly, but I have an important point to make. It follows on from the comments that I made earlier about disclosure of information to the Policing Board or the committee. I expressed worry about the lack of safeguards. One safeguard that I did not mention was that, if information were disclosed to the Policing Board and the committee, and it was subsequently improperly disclosed, criminal penalties are set out in clause 20(7) as

''liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.''

That penalty is woefully inadequate and it should be strengthened. I am happy to see that other members of the Committee are of the same view and have, indeed, outflanked me on the right by proposing an amendment with an even stiffer penalty than the one that I propose.

It is always easy to outflank me on the right as I try to be reasonable and moderate in my approach. People take such action by being more extreme and immoderate than I am. They consistently fail to beat me at the polls, but that is by the way. I shall not stray any further in that direction.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

No. I can glimpse you, Mr. Gale, out of the corner of my eye, and I think that we are entering into territory to which I should not return. I come back to the point that merely a fine is not adequate, especially for situations that might obtain in the not too distant future. In the past few weeks, the authorities have become aware that the tobacco smuggling activities of the republican movement have netted £5 million in the past three years.

Merely tinkering with fines is not adequate for the sort of situation with which we may have to deal. The Bill will be in force if those eventualities occur. I will say nothing about the probability of the Policing Board being constituted on a different basis, but wish to point out that the possibility is there. This Bill may have to cope with that, and the Government consider that it is appropriate to create an offence and to set a penalty. I agree. The Government should be commended for bringing forward such provisions. I have been criticising the general legislation itself and I shall return to that criticism. If they are bringing forward legislation in this form, they are right to provide for an offence, but if they are providing for an offence, it has to be a realistic penalty, and a fine is not.

The penalty should open to the court the possibility of imprisonment. I can have a nice argument with those to my right, both literally and figuratively, about the length of the sentence, but there has to be the possibility of imprisonment if it is to be a deterrent.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It seems appropriate for me to say a word or two about amendment No. 71. Am I in order, Mr. Gale?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Absolutely.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I apologise to the Committee for such a lily-livered amendment. I wanted something much stronger. Unfortunately, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, who is known to be on the rather dangerous left of the Conservative party, restrained me and enveloped me in moderation until I was confused. Eventually, I settled for a milk-and-water version of the penalty that really should be required. However, there it is: we have to live in a political party with differences of view. I cannot speak to the amendment with any personal enthusiasm, so I shall just move it formally.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must point out that the amendment cannot be moved at this stage.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

After such an introduction, I do not recognise the thumbnail sketch. As the Liberal Democrats have not been mentioned this morning, it may be relevant to say that, many years when I was a councillor, I decided that the time had come to be a reasonable person. I was offering a view to someone whom I knew to be a keen supporter of the Liberal Democrat party and said that I should become reasonable about matters. She replied, ''I didn't abandon my own party to vote for you at the last council elections to be reasonable.'' So perhaps I have got it wrong again.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, although I do not think that there should be an auction concerning the number of years. We could debate whether prison does deter people committing such offences, but I imagine that you would be out of your seat, Mr. Gale, rapidly if I went down that route. In the absence of any other effective deterrent, that is the only one that we have. It is absolutely right to go for some form of deterrent in such cases. As the previous debate showed, such circumstances could be matters of life and death for individuals who are named in reports. Information about certain people could fall into the hands of the wrong people.

I do not want to reopen the debate about reasonableness, but with all the good will in the world, things can go wrong. It is sensible to flag up the importance that we attach to safeguards for both the interest of the public and the individual, by saying that there should be a stiff deterrent. At present, there must be a fairly stiff prison sentence. Whether a sentence of two or three years is right is not relevant. I want the Government to accept some form of increase in the penalty. The provisions are important and they need to be underpinned by such a punishment.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am pleased to support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I do not want to be part of the bidding process about whether two years, three years or hanging is the appropriate penalty. It is important, however, that imprisonment should be an option that is available to the courts when disposing of the offence. I made that point on Second Reading and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given the Committee the opportunity to discuss it again.

I am worried that the restriction to a financial penalty will send a confusing message to the courts when they impose the sentence. It suggests that the offence is of an administrative nature. It is put on a par with some of the lesser road traffic offences, which is how it will be treated when penalties are imposed. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the offences could be serious. The full range of disposals should be available to the courts when dealing with them.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I feel great trepidation in saying anything at all on the subject of the auction that has been described.

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 20 - Restriction on disclosure of information

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in

clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'a' to end of line 25 and insert

'term of imprisonment not exceeding three years'.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) who was speaking in our previous sitting has been called away.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

If I am not mistaken, I was speaking when the Committee ended under the chairmanship of Mr. Gale.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

In that event, I apologise. I have been misinformed. I was told that Mr. Carmichael was speaking.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I assumed that you had mispronounced my name in such a way that it had come out as Mr. Carmichael. I cannot believe for a moment that you would be capable of any error; I still refuse to believe it. It may be as well that you were not in the Chair at the end of the previous sitting, because you would have observed a distressing divergence of view between my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is usually the most emollient of men, accused my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne of drafting what he thought was a slightly inadequate—he used stronger language than that—amendment on punishment for a member of the board who was found guilty of disclosing information via a court. All that I did was to complicate the position of my own party even further by saying that, in my view—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Is that the third way?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

As there are only three Conservative members of the Committee, my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that there cannot be a fourth party. My hon. Friends, as well as the right hon. Member for

Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will understand that historical reference. The point that I was making before my hon. Friend diverted me slightly was that it seems to me—as it seems to all Conservative members of the Committee and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—that a fine for disclosing this sensitive information would be completely inadequate.

I was about to confuse my hon. Friends by saying that, even if they did not want to press the matter to a Division, I did. However, I have received assurances from them that they may be of a similar mind and bowing, as I always do, to their complete wisdom in all matters, I shall allow an opportunity for the Minister to respond.

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

I shall continue to support the position of the board. I regard anyone who breaks a confidence, having been given sensitive information, as not just breaking his word to the board, his colleagues and his political party, but to society at large. I would have no sympathy with such a person or promote his case.

I have been in politics a long time and have seen the divulging of information. I have never yet seen a case brought to law in relation to a political party or an organisation in which it was not established who the person involved was. We could be 100 per cent., 90 per cent. or 50 per cent. sure, but one thing in politics and this way of life is certain. We could never find the person who did it and be certain that we could get a conviction. The discussion is worthy but while I would throw the book at someone who broke his word in such a way, we must remember that that is the reality.

Ask any Secretary of State who has served in the north of Ireland and he or she will readily confirm that it is unique when it comes to the leaking of sensitive information. There are those who might cause apprehension by their presence on the board, but other parties in the north of Ireland are so adept at leaking that one could envisage problems arising over who will get there first. I do not want to make a song and dance about it. I have no time for any of those people, or for anyone who would break that kind of confidence.

If the libertarian wing of the Tory party succeeds and upsets the five years measure, I would weep no tears. However, I know that leaking works in various directions. For years there have been leaks not just about the Government, but from the Government; not just about the police, but by the police; not just about policing boards, but by policing boards. For as long as our democratic system continues—and it should always be maintained—leaking will continue. It is good to have arguments and discussion about what the penalties might be. However, while those are worthy and worth putting forward, I am confident that that power will not be exercised, or even would be able to be exercised, to bring about the result that we are now discussing.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull on exactly where one would like to see the conviction leading. I doubt whether I would go as far the hon. Gentleman went—he described his views as being close to the ''hang 'em

and flog 'em'' people—but I would lean more closely towards his proposition than that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who described himself in terms of moderation. Given the way things are going in Northern Ireland, those who describe themselves as moderates may become an endangered species. It would appear from the opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph last week that about one third of the Unionist community shares the right hon. Gentleman's views. Of course an election will be held and we will find out, although the example of previous elections tells us that there are some who would prefer there not to be an election.

There is the issue about whether a term of imprisonment ought to be included as an option. The position in Northern Ireland is considerably different from that in most of mainland Great Britain. Information that is supplied in such circumstances in most of the UK may lead to a headline in the newspaper, or perhaps to some discomfort for a day or two. For the most part, information passed to particular groups in Northern Ireland can in certain circumstances lead to much more serious consequences. For that reason I support the inclusion of a term of imprisonment, albeit possibly one that is shorter than that recommended by the hon. Member for Solihull.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It might be of benefit to Committee members if I drew their attention to the code of ethics for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They might find it useful when we come to discuss other clauses later today and on Tuesday. I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for giving me permission to place copies on the Table. If there are not enough copies, I will ensure that more are provided early next week.

This has been a useful debate. It may help if I explained why the penalty was set at this level and if I explained the other sanctions that are available under the law, which I touched upon in earlier debates and which could, in certain circumstances, apply to an improper disclosure of sensitive information by one of the groups specified in the clause.

The penalty was set at this level to mirror the provisions of section 63(3) of the 1998 Act, which makes it an offence for the police ombudsman to disclose, other than in the specific terms of that section of the Act, any information gained during the course of her work. We believe that it is appropriate for the penalty for improper disclosure to be consistent with the other penalty for disclosure.

Part of the reason why neither penalty is more severe is that the offence described here deals only with the act of disclosure. That is a serious matter; I accept the representations that I have received on that from both sides of the Committee. You have known me for many years, Mr. Benton, and I hope that you will agree that I take a liberal attitude on many aspects of political life. The longer that I spend dealing with the responsibilities of my post as security Minister in Northern Ireland, the less liberal I am inclined to be. However, with regard to this amendment, I urge my

colleagues to restrain themselves from being tempted to enter into the auction that we got involved in before we broke for lunch.

There are many other offences within the criminal law that could, in certain circumstances, apply to improper disclosure of sensitive information. As I said in an earlier debate, depending on the use to which any information gained in the context of the board's work is put, the person disclosing it could be charged, for example, with conspiracy or a specific offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, such as disclosing information likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation or collecting or communicating information likely to be of use to terrorists.

The offence set up here does not override those other offences, nor does it seek to replace them in respect of board members. The ordinary criminal law will apply to those individuals just as it would to you, Mr. Benton, or to me. The act of improper disclosure constitutes an additional offence for which they should receive an appropriate penalty.

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

First, in talking about making people liable under the law for the disclosure of sensitive information, is there not more chance of bringing a case properly if there is documentation, rather than an absence of documentation? Secondly, in the type of circumstances that the Minister describes—I do not want to get into an auction either—what might be in the rules that might be agreed by the policing board in future in relation to those who may have given sensitive information? It may be that nothing is possible or that the rules are not relevant in law, but we should try, rather than pursue a method that will never bring people in front of the courts.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been successful fairly recently in tracking down leaks of sensitive information and in bringing charges, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, against those whom they believe to be responsible. I accept that the police are not always successful and my hon. Friend has greater knowledge and experience of such matters in Northern Ireland than me.

The offence as described in the Bill affords the police an opportunity to take action if sensitive information is not properly disclosed. Should an individual member of the board be found to have done such a thing, there are powers to remove that member. It is dishonourable to disclose such information because that person will have betrayed the confidence of other members of the board and the wider public who gave their authority to the board member. The clause as drafted is adequate without the stronger penalty urged by Opposition Members.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point and for her reference to certain irregularities by the police recently in relation to the divulging of information. I know a little—or, rather, a lot—about that, as do other hon. Members from the north of Ireland. However, no case could have been brought had there been no ability to seize documents. It is the documents rather than the information that could lead to successful prosecutions. In the absence of

those documents, there will be no chance of prosecution.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am not entirely convinced that that is the case. Documents are more easily traced, but notes are often taken in meetings in which sensitive information is shared. One would hope that those notes would reveal who was party to the information and how it was received. I take the point that the offence is difficult to prove. My hon. Friend is right; Government leak inquiries do not have a glorious history of success. However, the clause was introduced in another place to supplement the existing safeguards in the Bill and existing legislation to ensure proper protection for disclosure of sensitive information. As I have said, I expect there to be occasions when documents would be made available to members of the board in the circumstances that I described.

The power described in the Bill provides a useful additional safeguard. I will reflect further on proposals to extend the terms of the clause that were discussed in earlier debates, and, if appropriate, we will table amendments on Report. On the specific issue of the sentence, however, I will resist the amendment and encourage my hon. Friends to do the same should there be a Division.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I expected that we would have a short debate on the amendment I moved before lunch, so I am pleasantly surprised by the length of our discussion. I am also pleasantly surprised by the support for the amendment. Although he is no longer here, I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his support. I am also pleased to have the support of the hon. Member for East Londonderry and that of the two hon. Gentlemen to my right; both literally and figuratively.

The support underlines the seriousness of the matter and the desirability of the Minister to think again. She said that there were other offences and that the provision would supplement them. However, it would do a little more than that because other offences will be available only in specific circumstances, and not generally. As she originally said, the other offences depend on context and circumstances, and the use to which the information is put. The Minister needs the offence in the amendment because there might otherwise not be a penalty.

If the Minister relied on conspiracy or on the Terrorism Act 2000, many leaks would incur no penalty. That is wrong. It is why an offence is needed, but it is also an argument for requiring an offence that carries a substantial penalty. Mere leakage cannot be considered to be a matter of no significance because leaked information that does not give rise to offences could yet cause serious damage and, of course, undermine the integrity of operations. I ask the Minister to think again, although we shall have to press the amendment.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about his desire to throw the book at the leaker. If he will forgive me for saying this, one can throw the book much more effectively if it is a good, heavy book. I take his point that leakers

often do not get caught. However, leakers would be caught more regularly if we were not hamstrung by bad legislation on intercepted communications, which is a serious impediment to police operations.

The Minister may know that, for the last 10 years, I have pressed to make the law more sensible. It has proved difficult to deal with organised crime—terrorism is a species of organised crime—in Northern Ireland using current law on intercepted communications. The Minister has only to look at experiences in other jurisdictions to find out how right that is. If we changed the law on intercepted communications, leakers would be caught more regularly.

I cannot avoid building on the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about the infrequency with which leakers are caught. That reinforces my point from an earlier debate about the foolishness of the disclosure provisions to the board. They are drawn too widely, which means that an offence is needed. However, the likelihood that the offence may not be as effective as we would like underlines the foolishness of the provision in the Bill.

We think that the amendment is important and worth pressing to a vote, as my hon. Friends have said.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh raised two issues earlier, one of which was specific to the amendment we were discussing and the other that was specific, but involved general issues, too; I left that until now. I did not talk about the specific point regarding the hon. Gentleman's desire to include the ombudsman and the staff of the ombudsman. He said that there are always leaks when politicians are around; that is undoubtedly true.

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

I should like an accurate quotation. I did not say that there were always leaks when politicians were around; I made it clear that leaks can come from everyone—including politicians, unfortunately—and from all forms of administration. I ask the hon. Gentleman sincerely to believe that. I

humbly request that if he attempts to quote me, he does so accurately.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was coming to the other categories that the hon. Gentleman included, but he certainly included politicians; it is right to say that where there are politicians, there are leaks. However, if I have upset the hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly happy to apologise. Hansard will show exactly what he said, and I have no difficulty in agreeing with it, or with what he said earlier.

The way to maximise the chances of leaks is to let documents be shown to more and more people. That is at the heart of my concern. When the hon. Gentleman said that documents should be released not only to the ombudsman but to his staff, it worried me. There are other issues. I will, for a moment, sound as though I am arguing that the relevant information in a document should go to more and more people, so if it appears that I am arguing against myself, I apologise. I want the Minister to clarify, and the best way to do that is to ask whether the provisions include this person or that person.

Subsection (6)(a) of new section 74A says:

''a member of the Board or a member of the staff of the Board'',

and subsection (6)(b) says:

''a member of the committee or a member of the staff of the Board who provides services to the committee''.

That is entirely proper. That is the equivalent of saying that the Clerk of the House and his staff should have all the documents that come before a Committee. I am not distinguishing politicians; some of the other members of the board may well not be professionals in the public arena. However, it is probably safe to say that quite a significant number of members of the board will have staff of their own who are distinct from the staff of the board.

Has any thought been given to whether a member of the board can do his job properly and fully without the use of his own resources as well as those of the board? I should be interested to know the Minister's view. Is the provision quite deliberately meant to exclude the members' personal staff? If so, it should be helpful to have that on record for the avoidance of doubt. If the provision were intended to exclude the personal staff of a member of the board, it would be helpful to have on record the Government's justification for that. I want to agree with the Government, but I need to know why they would want to exclude those people.

There is a worrying issue that is particularly sensitive in the case of Northern Ireland. The staff of certain political parties that are still terrorists, in my view, have managed to get themselves into hot water by leaking documents and getting hold of documents that they should not have. Sinn Fein-IRA may be admitted to the process discussed in the clause. Whether or not they renounce their arms is irrelevant; they are a terrorist organisation. If that were to happen—they have a record of leaking—the member of the board who might represent the terrorist organisation may say that he will give the document to

his staff. There does not have to be an attempt to burgle offices, because it will be appropriate to give documents to someone inside the system. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified such matters.

Will the Minister look carefully at subsection (6)(c) and (d)? Simply, an exception is the Secretary of State. Is the clause suggesting that if the Secretary of State is given information, he and only he can deal with it? At present, it seems that the Secretary of State cannot even turn to his private office and say, ''Will you find this information?'' because members of his staff would see it. Is it the Government's intention that only the Secretary of State should receive the information?

The same applies to the Chief Constable. If he is an exception, does that mean that he is the only police officer in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who may have the information?

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

The hon. Gentleman is succeeding in confusing me. He berates my amendments Nos. 97 and 99 on the grounds that I specified the staff of the ombudsman. In his view, the proposals do not apply to those staff, but to the staff of the board, the staff of members of the board and the staff of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's argument is inconsistent. Will he clarify that the reference to the ombudsman or the Secretary of State means those who are working for them?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I deliberately said that I would argue against myself. If I have succeeded in confusing the hon. Gentleman, I have done my job well. It is what I intended to do. The simplest way of teasing out the Government's thinking is to suggest that the number of people who have the information might be extended. He is right, however. We should keep the clause as tightly drawn as possible.

The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself, too. If he wants me to accept that the reference to the Secretary of State is self-evidently the Secretary of State and his civil servants, why are there references to the board and to the staff of the board? If it were self-evident that a reference to the Secretary of State means the Secretary of State and his staff, surely a reference to the board would mean the board and the staff of the board. Given that the staff of the board are mentioned specifically, I am entitled to ask the Minister about the staff of the Secretary of State.

What about the Chief Constable? Does the provision mean that no other police officer or member of his administrative support staff is entitled to have the information? If so, that raises the weird situation in which the Chief Constable will have to type his own documents when preparing the report because no one else will be entitled to the information. I cannot believe that the Government want that. If they do, they must explain what they have in mind, given the contradiction between only mentioning the Chief Constable and the staff of the board. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I am worried about subsections (6)(f) and (5)(f), which state that one of the exceptions is

''for the purposes of any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings''.

Criminal proceedings contain a great number of rules, regulations and procedures to guard against the bringing of flippant and spurious prosecutions. I am happy with that. Similarly, disciplinary proceedings within the Police Service will be governed by the rules of the institutions. I am worried that civil proceedings can be taken against people for reasons other than seeking justice. They can be a means of bringing to the public domain, particularly if there were a lesser burden of proof, matters that should not be in the public domain.

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

In the interests of clarity, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us an example.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Any individual would need the permission of the authorities to bring criminal proceedings; before disciplinary proceedings were brought, the system would have to decide that its rules had been broken. Any citizen of the UK is entitled to start civil proceedings. Indeed, it would be possible for me to bring civil proceedings against the hon. Gentleman for libel or slander on a flimsy case. He would certainly get that laughed out of court and he would get costs, but I would have introduced the information into the public domain, using the justification that because I started a civil action—

Mr. Mallon rose—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am trying to give the hon. Gentleman his example. If I started a civil action and were prepared to pay damages, the information could be released to somebody else.

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

The hon. Gentleman knows that if he brought a case against me in the courts for libel or slander he would probably win.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That would be even better, because I would have achieved my nefarious aim of getting the information into the public domain without having to pay costs or damages. In fact, I might even get the leak authorised under the clause and get damages as well, which would be a bonus. None the less, I wonder whether it is right for there to be a blanket exception for civil actions. That kind of an exception is a huge loophole that would hand an opportunity to the people who do not mean the peace process any good; those who have got it in for other people. Those people may say, ''Here is an exception. I will think up a spurious civil action against somebody for something quite ridiculous. Nevertheless I will start an action, because that entitles me to put the information into the public domain.'' Will the Minister reassure me as to whether there could be some safeguards before a civil action were taken?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Perhaps the Minister will make this point in her reply; I scarcely dare suggest it. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne may be making rather heavy weather of the matter. If information were to be disclosed to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances, I suspect—although I am not a lawyer—that it would be disclosed also to senior civil servants and similar persons. In a law suit, a similar consideration could apply to the Chief Constable. We are dealing with what is essentially a new provision on the restriction of the disclosure of information and

with exceptions to that. To make exceptions in the case of the board is, as I understand it, a new departure. I presume that the wording was included to give members of the board, or staff who work for it, some kind of clear protection in law. Perhaps the Minister will correct me when she responds, but I strongly suspect that that is the case.

I hate to tangle with my hon. Friend, but I bring him some solace. He was right to say that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made rather heavy weather of the matter this morning by tabling his amendments relating to the ombudsman, because it could be assumed also that that ombudsman, in certain circumstances, is allowed to share information with senior members of his staff.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

As I understand it, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has touched on the case with regard to the Secretary of State. For example, civil servants who work in the relevant Department—in this case, the Northern Ireland Office—are deemed to be included in the reference to the Secretary of State. I understand that they are covered as a general principle of administrative law and that they are also empowered to act on the behalf of the relevant Secretary of State.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am reassured. I thought that that would be the case. How far down the chain of command does that assumption go? Are we talking about every single person who works for the Secretary of State or, as other hon. Members have said, just senior members of staff? What would be the definition of the ranks or grades that apply?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed response, but he is right that it would include senior officials involved in policy development. It would also involve the private offices of the Secretary of State and Ministers involved in that sort of work.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister has given the position, as she understands it, with regard to the Secretary of State. I assume that the position of the Northern Ireland Office is the same as that of other Whitehall Departments, in that the office is simply the office of the Minister. Has the Minister turned her mind to the question of the Northern Ireland Departments in the event of devolution? The constitutional position of a Minister in Northern Ireland and the Department is radically different. The Department has a separate identity to that of the Minister. That is a rather unusual state of affairs. It has nothing to do with current legislation; it has been lying around for a long time and was caused by accident many years ago. However, there is a radically different relationship. I wonder whether those who framed the Bill were aware of that, and provided for it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question that I have not had cause to think about before now. [Interruption.] I have just been inspired.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

May I help my hon. Friend?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Let me just share my inspiration first. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but that this is not an issue for this moment. I

have not been invited to consider it before now. It is something that we will probably need to return to.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

My hon. Friend has stated the position, which has been accepted in case law; I assume that that applies in Northern Ireland, too. A Minister can never act by himself or herself, but has to act through delegation. That is why those who drafted the Bill have simply assumed that when the Secretary of State is mentioned, we mean persons to whom decisions can be delegated. How far down the chain the delegation goes depends on the nature of the office and the position of the civil servant making a particular decision.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall come in a moment to the matter of the Chief Constable.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am not sure whether the inspiration that the Minister received covers my point. She might want to arrange with officials for it to be explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a difference. He has given the classic position with regard to Whitehall Departments, but there is a difference; I might even explain it to the hon. and learned Gentleman myself.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Members of the Committee have raised legitimate concerns about the role that staff of members of the board might play in the event of sensitive information being shared with the board, either through the small committee or by any other means. Personal staff working for board members are not staff of the board. The latter are appointed under paragraph 13 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, and it is only board staff that may have access to the sensitive information, and therefore only they who are covered by the offence. They will provide the supporting role to the small committee that we discussed, and will service it in an administrative capacity. I hesitate to mention this, but it may interest the Committee to know that some board members have asked whether, given their heavy workload, they should have dedicated research staff to assist them, in a party capacity, with their work on the Policing Board. That is one consideration that we had in mind.

It was preferable for staff conducting such research to be employed by the board, much in the way that Library staff may conduct research on behalf of a Member of the House of Commons, but are employed by Parliament. Although that is not entirely relevant to the clause, it may be useful for hon. Members to know our view, which was informed by considerations of that nature.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is the answer that I expected and hoped that I would get. Individual members of staff of individual members of the board should be excluded. However, the Minister may need to reflect on what would happen if an individual on the board member's personal staff saw something inadvertently; by opening information posted to the board member,

for example. In those circumstances, would it be a defence to say, ''I didn't actually know what was in the package but I received it and I shouldn't have done''?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It would not be an offence because such an individual was not covered by the provisions. Such difficulties could arise between hon. Members and staff and it would depend on the behaviour of the individual staff member as to what consequences would ensue.

It may help if I share with hon. Members the position of the Chief Constable. The reference to the Chief Constable also includes officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Case law establishes that statutory reference to a Chief Constable does not necessarily mean that he or she must act personally. When necessary, the Chief Constable may delegate functions to another officer at an appropriate level.

In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, we discussed whether the clause was drawn too narrowly with regard to the ombudsman. Given the valid concerns raised about the drafting, I will re-examine the precise terminology of the clause and may return to the matter on Report. It may not be necessary because of the way in which the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable are defined; a similar definition may apply to the other organisations.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister had me eating out of her hand with her answer that the reference to Chief Constable could apply to another officer. However, at the very end she added, ''at an appropriate level''. The question arises whether that was a slip of the tongue. I am not criticising her, but what is ''an appropriate level''? We cannot afford to be sloppy about this matter because there will be a lot at stake if somebody is accused of breaking this particular law. I am sure that the answer will not be at the Minister's fingertips and I am happy to receive one later.

I wanted to return to the question of the staff of the Secretary of State. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, it would be helpful to have a clearer definition before Report of how far down the Northern Ireland Office the definition goes. Is there a level of appropriateness, or does it go right to the bottom? If the Minister replies in writing, I especially wish to know whether the Secretary of State's special advisers or members of his or her press office would be defined as staff in these circumstances.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Given the nature of those questions, I am grateful to have been invited to write to members of the Committee and will do so. It will be valuable to explore the detail with my own officials and take legal advice as to precisely how the definitions in the Bill have been drawn. Further amendment may not be necessary because of case law, but I would like to be certain that that is the case. I am more than happy to write to members of the Committee to clarify that position. The matter is important and we must get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Special committee of the Board

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in

clause 21, page 14, line 38, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 100, in

clause 21, page 14, line 38, leave out '5' and insert '7'.

Amendment No. 92, in

clause 21, page 14, line 38, after 'members', insert

'who shall have been positively vetted by the Security Service'.

Government amendment No. 77.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 relate to the establishment of the special committee of the board, which is part of the arrangements that we have talked about on many other occasions. The clause was added at the last minute in another place. I have listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talking about the perils of the Report stage and the nasty things that can happen to people during it. I must say that my colleagues in another place would agree with him, because things happened to them on that occasion.

Amendment No. 91 would remove the word ''shall'' and replace it with ''may''. That would create a situation in which the Policing Board was not under a legal obligation to create such a committee and could choose whether to do so. That would give the Policing Board the option. It also enables my colleagues on the Policing Board to let the Committee and the Minister know that they take great exception to that obligation. The Policing Board was not consulted about the changes; I think that the Minister would accept that. The Policing Board would prefer not to be consulted on certain matters on which there are likely to be political differences. However, the Policing Board was not consulted on this issue that deals with its internal workings. Will the Minister tell me who was consulted? My party's representatives on the board were not consulted and, as far as I am aware, no member of my party was consulted. When the Government tabled the amendments in another place, they offered information and briefings on the matter to one of my colleagues who was, at that stage, indisposed and not in a position to take advantage of it. However, that was a briefing, not a consultation.

I wish to place on record the fact that we take grave exception to the Government bringing forward an important series of changes to the operation of the Policing Board without consulting the board. The board, as the Minister knows, has been remarkably successful in its operations and the Government have unilaterally introduced changes without consultation. I will wait to hear what the hon. Member for East Londonderry says, but I suspect that his party's representatives were not consulted either. The Government are very foolish to proceed in such a high-handed, unilateral way with a board that is working successfully.

There is considerable anger about the issue among my party's representatives on the Policing Board. They

will be delighted if the present provision, which places them under a legal obligation to form such a committee, is amended to give them discretion. They are presently not minded to form a committee if the option is available to them. That is a serious matter in itself, but leaving aside the more general issue of the failure to consult, one may doubt whether it is a good idea to create such a committee at all. The establishment of a committee would create different classes of members within board. The committee would handle sensitive information, giving rise to difficulty. I have already argued on other amendments that such problems would not arise if the provisions relating to the disclosure of information were drawn more sensibly and more tightly. The provision is ill advised and consequential on other ill-advised changes that have been made.

The Bill, as presently drafted, provides an avenue whereby matters that relate to national security will be communicated, or might be communicated, to the committee of the board. It would not be inappropriate to have a safeguard with regard to the persons who are on the board to ensure that they are fit and proper to receive the information. That explains amendment No. 100, which would give rise to some interesting situations, were it to be carried into effect and were positive vetting to be required with regard to the occupations of members of the Policing Board.

Although some hon. Members, such as myself, might find it slightly amusing, there is a serious point concerning the failure of communication, the failure to consult and the failure to bother to find out what were our views on the matter. I want the Minister to say who was consulted, whose idea it was, where it came from and what dirty little deal lies behind it.

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

I wish to pursue my amendment No. 100. I noted the gleam in the eye of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann as I got to my feet. Let me put him out of his pain. When a person is an ''ex'' in various ways, he is no longer a member of the consultable class. I fall into that category and it is from that position that I address my little amendment. I noticed the gleam in the right hon. Gentleman's eye about my amendment, which would make the momentous change to the number of members of the committee from five to seven.

I await the exercise of the right hon. Gentleman's sense of humour about those figures. I could try to be funny about them, too. Let me try to be at the start. Who will the five be? There are four political parties on the board. Will there be one person from each party? That makes four. Then there has to be another one. There are nine independent Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, so there will have to be an independent member. Will the member be a nationalist independent or a Unionist independent?

There is a second problem with the figure of five. The board is working well, as are the chairman and vice-chairman. I do not want a situation in which their role and approach is disrupted. In many ways, they are complementary roles. Do we include the chairman and the vice-chairman on such a committee? If we do, then there are three members. We then have to divide three into four, plus one, which would cause difficulties.

There is not a suitable number. It is a little like the debate that we have just had on the penalty in cases that will probably never be brought to court. I do not think that there is a suitable number, but the most unsuitable number would be five, for the reasons that I have given.

I, too, do not want a Policing Board on which there are good and bad members, equal members and those members who are more equal than others. That does not lead to the type of rapport that is necessary within a board, especially one that will be under such pressure. However, that is what is in front of us. We are working on the numbers.

I have tabled an amendment that replaces five with seven. I could immediately point out the difficulties with seven, too, but they are less than they would be with five.

Another question must be asked. In the experience of the Policing Board to date, had this provision been included from the beginning, how many times would the Committee have met? It is my understanding—although it may be faulty—that it would never have met, because there have not been any requests for information of this nature.

There probably will be such requests in the future. There might be cases where people will try not just to use that provision, but to abuse it. Those things may happen, but the element of collective self-preservation as a board will come into play as well: the capacity to sustain a difficult board such as this in difficult circumstances on a very difficult issue would substantially increase if there were more than five people. However, I repeat that I do not believe that any number is ideal because there is not a perfect way of arranging this.

I have made my point about seven, and I can anticipate some of the permutations that will be referred to—probably very shortly. They are as obvious as the permutations with regard to five, but they are less damaging and dangerous. If I had set out to pick the wrong number, I would have arrived at five.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman with regard to arriving at a number that would minimise if not eliminate the difficulties. Looking at the permutations, it is very difficult to arrive at a number that would achieve that, and which would command consensus on the Policing Board and among the communities in Northern Ireland.

In response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I should say that my party was not consulted on this issue. This is not the first time that it has not been consulted. The Government make a regular habit of not consulting my party. We find it difficult to get meetings with the Prime Minister, and we have some, but a little less, difficulty in meeting the Secretary of State. We do not take less offence at not being consulted than the right hon. Member for

Upper Bann, but as that is a regular occurrence we have become more accustomed to it.

I understand why the right hon. Member for Upper Bann wants to replace ''shall'' with ''may''. I assume that if his amendment is agreed to the board may decide to constitute a committee, and that if it did so that committee would have five members. The right hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement. If that were the case, notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I find it difficult to arrive at a number that everyone would be content with. If that could be achieved, I would be broadly supportive of amendment No. 91.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The debate has been interesting thus far. I shall start by speaking to amendment No. 91. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made a sensible, practical point, as well as an important point of principle. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, there has not yet been need for such a committee. Speaking as one of the liberal politicians who is well to the centre of British politics and who hates waste, we should not force the board to set up a committee—it would cost money to set up and staff the committee—until that committee has a need to meet. As the clause stands, the first thing that must happen after the Bill is enacted is the establishment of the committee. If I understand the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh correctly, it will be set up to do precisely nothing. For practical reasons, using the word ''may'' is much more sensible than using the word ''shall''.

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

Again, if the hon. Gentleman attributes something to me, may I respectfully ask that he at least does that accurately? We have debated the reasons why the committee will be set up and why there should be a committee for most of the day. I have not suggested that it will do nothing. I said that it has not met before now because it does not exist under legislation, and I said that I do not understand why that was not pursued before—I may be wrong about that. However, the hon. Gentleman should understand that the committee could be a crucial factor for the board because the alternative to it might well be a running veto between the Chief Constable and the board, with the Secretary of State somewhere in between. The everyday working of the board would be in an impossible position because of failure to implement a means whereby board members could rightly ask for sensitive information.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was coming to much of that. All that I was doing was talking about practicalities. I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there has not been an episode thus far that would have required the committee, and that is why using the word ''may'' is much more sensible and practical than using the word ''shall''. I shall argue in a moment whether the approach of having a committee is a good idea.

If the committee is a way to solve a problem, it should be provided for on the statute book and the provision should be ready to use when necessary. All that I am saying in support of the amendment is that we should not go through such a rigmarole and spend money on the paraphernalia of a committee until it is

needed. It is not needed at this moment on a Thursday afternoon.

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

The hon. Gentleman asked rhetorically why the measure is not on the statute book. That is because the Government refused to include a method in the 2000 Act to deal with the matter. That is one reason why we are back three years later and trying to get the legislation right.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That may be so, but I thought that we were discussing what should happen when the committee is on the statute book, not whether it should be on the statute book. The amendment addresses what the wording of the Bill should be. I am not arguing at present that we should not be able to set up the committee. All that I am saying—this is the third time that I have tried to get the hon. Gentleman to understand my practical point—is that we should have the committee, if it will help, but the board should not be required to set it up until there is a job for it to do. There might be an episode that requires the committee on the day on which the Bill is passed, but there might be a year before such an episode crops up. The time to spend money on the structure of the committee is the moment when the committee is needed—that is all that I am saying at the moment. No member of the Committee has said that there is a backlog of things to do that cannot be done because the committee does not exist. It would probably save a small amount of taxpayers' money if we supported the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and I am more than happy to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman wanted to register his concern about not being consulted. He is right to be upset. I noted that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said modestly that he is now an ex-important person. That is nonsense. He is still a very important person but, in his view, times have moved on and he was not consulted. I imagine, however, that he is probably speaking on behalf of the SDLP and that it was not consulted.

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

I look forward to being with the hon. Gentleman when he reads the Official Report. I am not of the consultable class because of my status as an ex-everything. One aspect of being an ex is that I do not know what is going on around me because no one is interested in what I think any more. There are certain luxuries to being an ex. We do not have to go through the tedium of consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is no free-standing SDLP, as he implied. We are a political party. It may come as a shock to him, but there are political parties in the world that act as one.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lecturette on the unity of political parties. Perhaps he can tell me how that can be achieved within my political party.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Surely my hon. Friend should remind the Minister and the Government that they, too, need to consider unity following yesterday evening's vote.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We are not about to debate the definition of unity within political parties. Will hon. Members return to the amendment?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thought that you might say that, Mr. Benton. At least, it has prevented me from having to think up a suitable response to my hon. Friend. That is something for the Strangers' Bar after the end of our sitting.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Ulster Unionist party was not consulted. I was about to suggest that the entire membership of the SDLP was not consulted, but I am not sure that that was what I heard. The matter may just be a wicked SDLP plot.

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

Of course, it is. Everything that has happened in the north of Ireland over the past 30 years is a wicked SDLP plot. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well. It was said earlier that political parties do not have the right to negotiate, to lobby, to put a point of view or to try to convince people. I still believe that the political process is about trying to convince people who do not agree with a certain view, that that view is valid.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is interesting. I was speculating that such matters may be an SDLP plot, because that would undermine the thesis of some people. The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that the Democratic Unionist party had not been consulted. If the UUP, the DUP and the SDLP were not consulted, it would probably follow that the answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann was that the wicked plot was dreamt up by Sinn Fein-IRA, and that would make a useful discussion.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he has received an unequivocal assurance from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the Ulster Unionist party was not consulted? He has received an equally unequivocal assurance from me that the Democratic Unionist party was not consulted, but he has not got anything like an unequivocal assurance from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the SDLP was not consulted.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is so, but I was simply hoping that it would be possible to exempt the SDLP from this complaint. It would have been nice to focus all our ire on Sinn Fein-IRA.

There is a difficulty, Mr. Benton. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull has had to go somewhere else, which leaves me speaking not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my party. As the acting official spokesman of my party I have been given a brief headed ''Conservatives—points to make''. On the point about this change I have to read the following. Under the heading ''Government Concessions''—I like that bit—it states:

''In response to Conservative and Unionist pressure on this issue the Government brought forward a number of measures at Third Reading in the Lords designed to allay our concerns.''

I am afraid that, rather than it being the fault of Sinn Fein-IRA, it seems that we might have been responsible for this. That puts me in a rather uncomfortable position.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

As the brief cannot possibly be mistaken, could it be that the SDLP has acted after Conservative pressure on it to put pressure on the Government?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It may try to take credit for our achievement on this occasion. However, in case either the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the hon. Member for East Londonderry are concerned, I must point out that when I say that the Conservative and Unionist party has done something I do not seek to claim the credit for it. It is just that we have not got round to changing our name after some events a few years ago. This puts the blame entirely on my shoulders.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising the enormous power and influence that my party exercises in the House of Lords.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If I were not constrained here I would try to explain all this as best I could. I will simply mention that one of my anxieties about this approach to a problem is that setting up a committee of this sort runs the danger of creating two classes of member: those who have all the information and those who do not. Having been around the world of politics, committees, boards, authorities and ultimately Parliament itself, I know what it feels like to be one of those members who are tagged on to be there when it is necessary but excluded when something interesting or important happens. That is not necessarily a recipe for a harmonious, effective, well-integrated board that includes everyone. Nevertheless it is a concession by the Government to try to meet some of the objections. Indeed my colleagues in the other place argued in favour of it, but I have some concerns about it.

In amendment No. 100 the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh argues for having a committee of seven members rather than five. I would argue the other way round. The more people who are included in a process like this, the greater the risk of a leak. The more people who know something, the more there are to spread it around a bit. I would even question whether five was an adequate number. I certainly would not argue that seven was because that is almost half the board and so one might as well let all of them become involved.

If it is felt that only a few should be involved, it shows that there are genuine concerns in someone's mind—presumably, the Minister's—that a number of members of the board could not be trusted on these occasions. If we have got to that situation, that in itself will cause offence to those who are excluded and would be an argument for including more. However many more are included—seven, eight or nine—someone will still be excluded. Those people will be offended, because of the reasons why they cannot be involved.

I am also concerned—I will not, on this occasion, attribute any of these thoughts or comments to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, but will make them as my own—that politicians have something of a reputation for being less reliable than others when it comes to information. Their stock in trade is to try to obtain an advantage. People who seek to use

information in a way that perhaps the Act would not tolerate, are, I believe, called spin doctors.

If we were to go down the committee route, it would therefore seem sensible to me to exclude all of the political appointees to the board. I can only begin to imagine what effect that would have. It would presumably undermine the hon. Gentleman's confidence in the process, so there would be an argument about that.

However, the Act will probably say that the chairman or the vice-chairman of the board should be involved. I would argue that, if we were to go down that route, a sub-committee consisting of the chairman and two non-party political members of the board would be the best approach. I realise that I am an Englishman talking about the best way of doing something from my experience, and I can understand the arguments as to why it would not work in Northern Ireland. However, I worry about that matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on my suggestion, I should be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Mallon rose—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might wish to comment.

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

I can never resist temptation. The hon. Gentleman speaks about Northern Ireland in a rather condescending tone, but I can forgive him that—probably. However, he should bear in mind that, in Northern Ireland, the people who represent political parties on the board approach that from a political position. An additional complication is that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Policing Board, for whom I have enormous respect and of whom I would make no criticism, are actually appointees not of the board, but of the Secretary of State, so that reduces the options further.

I ask the hon. Gentleman, since he invited me to comment and I was foolish enough to accept his invitation, to remember something that we all should remember about Northern Ireland, that there is no such thing as absolute independence, because that is not the type of world that we live in. It may, however, be the type of world that the hon. Gentleman lives in, in which case I envy him.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I think that I was trying to make those points. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if they came across in a condescending way. He should know me well enough to understand that I have always tried my level best to indicate that Northern Ireland is not England.

The only point that I will make in response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because you will rise from your Chair quickly if I go too far, Mr. Benton, is that Northern Ireland and England are both part of the United Kingdom, and I believe that we should be taking steps to see to what extent we can develop the same situation in all parts of the UK.

Although I accept and understand that Northern Ireland is different, and that is why I said what I did, I make no apology for trying to determine to what extent Northern Ireland can be brought further into

the mainstream of the UK. That is the future that I would want for the Province, as would the majority of the people who live there. I meant what I said to be a political statement of what I believe, but I did not mean it to be condescending. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, but that is what democracy is about.

I shall now comment on amendment No. 92, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He was too modest and too gentle a gentleman to expand on why that amendment would be interesting under certain circumstances. I support the principle behind the amendment, and that is why I was exploring how far down the chain of command information could pass. I believe that, for all the reasons that we have given about sensitivity in the public interest, and the risk to individuals, that sort of information, passed to somebody else, can have catastrophic consequences.

There ought to be some mechanism for determining who is entitled to receive it. It might be by done by grade or category of staff. The right hon. Gentleman has hit on something important: it is not unreasonable to ask to have people positively vetted before they receive information that could have a significant security element. I, too, would be delighted to see members of terrorist organisations having to submit themselves to positive vetting. If they want to be part of the inclusive process—they say that they want all of that so that they can take part—it is not unreasonable to ask them to prove that they are no longer terrorists. One of the best ways to prove that is to be positively vetted. I do not see why anybody should take exception to it.

When the right hon. Gentleman penned the amendment, he was right, and I support him. However, it does not say that the result of the positive vetting has to be positive rather than negative. It is possible for somebody submitted to positive vetting to fail. As the amendment stands, to submit oneself to positive vetting but to fail would meet its requirements. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman means, but we should be clear that it should not just happen, it should be satisfactory.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on Government amendment No. 77 and to catching your eye again, Mr. Benton, if necessary.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

May I make some inquiries of the Minister in the context of amendment No. 91, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann? So far, the debate has taken place entirely with reference, so far as I can see under clause 21(3), to new sub-paragraph (1A)(a), that is to say, in the context of information being supplied to the Committee by the Chief Constable. However, my eye has fallen on new sub-paragraph (1A)(b), which refers to the sub-committee's being able to perform

''such other functions of the Board as may be delegated to it by the Board''—

so the committee of the board, once established, might consider functions other than the handling of sensitive information. I am curious to know from the Minister what those functions might be. I had presumed that the board would have the freedom to set up

committees on an ad hoc basis to consider suitable matters. For example, if a committee wished to consider the ''Code of Ethics'' it would be free to do so.

I wonder whether, by setting up the committee to perform other functions, new sub-paragraph (1A)(b) presents a potential difficulty in that the committee will now have to consider all the other functions and the board will not be able to set up other committees to consider matters other than the handling of sensitive information. If that is so, the board might have a problem in that it might wish to have the flexibility to set up, ad hoc, other committees to handle other matters. However, it will not be able to do that because of the drafting of the Bill; those other matters will now have to be considered by the committee of five people, which will have a set membership that cannot be moved around. When the committee is established, it must have the same five members as the Minister proposes. I am curious to know her response to that point because the drafting is such that the Bill might accidentally contain an element of inflexibility that the Government do not intend.

The final words of the clause state that the committee

''shall as far as practicable be representative of the Board.''

I assume—I should think that the Minister also assumes—that when the board sets up the committee, it will seek to make it representative. Therefore, why did this consideration have to be spelled out in the Bill?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Member for Spelthorne will be horrified when I tell the Committee that I found myself in broad agreement with much of what he said. I hope that he will not take that as an encouragement to speak at length on other matters, but on this occasion many of the concerns that he raised were very well expressed.

We should not dismiss the fourth page of the hon. Gentleman's briefing because the Ulster Unionist party and Opposition peers in another place raised concerns about the handling of sensitive information; in particular, that which could endanger life. The special committee approach is an attempt to address those concerns; it offers a practical solution to the issue by ensuring that sensitive information that is made available to the board has a small circulation.

It would be wrong of me to fail to respond to the criticism of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for East Londonderry. Both of them represent parties that were not consulted on this issue, and I apologise for that. I failed to follow through vigorously enough with regard to the necessity of keeping in touch with those parties that have played a constructive role on the board, alongside the party of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, by largely working together in a consensual way. The right hon. Gentleman has reported and reflected the anger and offence that is felt by members of his party, and I am sure that members of the Democratic Unionist party feel similarly; I am disappointed that this has happened.

Briefings and discussions were conducted in another place. There are no excuses for what happened, but the reasons for the failure to consult fully include the time pressure under which we were operating and the unavailability of the representatives of the party of the right hon. Gentleman at that time, to which he referred. It is also fair to say that the board took a collective view that, on matters such as this, consultation should be with political parties rather than the board, although that does not get me off the hook of failing in the way that the right hon. Gentleman describes.

I am grateful for this opportunity to listen again to the concerns about this matter. The debate has been very useful and constructive. It has revolved around the issue of how we enable the board to carry out its function in a proper and appropriate manner while safeguarding the detailed information that the Chief Constable may have to share with the board from time to time.

The amendments deal with the arrangements for establishing a small committee, as we all know from the previous debate. The thinking behind the clause was to ensure that the most sensitive information could be kept in tight circulation within the board in order to protect it. Members of the Committee will appreciate that restricting circulation to small numbers is an important principle in safeguarding sensitive information, and it seemed prudent to put in place an arrangement that does that. We have already discussed under clauses 9 and 18 the occasions on which the Chief Constable might do that. Essentially, those occasions are in the context of the report requested under section 59 of the 2000 Act or in response to a request for information under new section 33A to that Act, which is introduced under clause 18.

The Government think that there is value in establishing a small group within the board, possibly following a request from the Chief Constable. I do not intend to create a two-tier board, and I was interested to hear the comments about that. It would be an unhealthy development, and would disturb what has so far been a very constructive working board. The creation of such a small group has value and means that sensitive information can be shared without being exposed to wider circulation. That should enable the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State to be more open in the sharing of such information.

Amendment No. 91 is interesting and proposes that the board have discretion over whether to set up such a committee. Of course, if the amendment were made and the board chose not to set up a small committee, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State could take that into account in deciding the extent to which sensitive information should be shared with the board; it would have been the board's choice, in such circumstances, not to set up the committee. It would then be at the discretion of the Chief Constable and, ultimately the Secretary of State, as to whether that made it inappropriate for sensitive information to be shared.

If we were just dealing with information covered under the grounds of referral in clause 22, as recommended by the Patten report, I would be less concerned about the amendment. However, the Bill provides that other sensitive information that, if disclosed, could put someone in danger—that issue in particular caused concern in the other place—should not form a ground for referral to the Secretary of State, but rather should be shared only with the small committee of the board, thus restricting its circulation. Without a small committee and a further change to re-include that information in the grounds of referral in clause 22, the Chief Constable would have no choice but to share that information with the full board. For the sake of the person whose life could be in danger, I believe that that would be going a step too far.

One possibility might be for the board to have discretion over whether to set up such a committee—that, broadly, is what the right hon. Gentleman suggests—unless specifically asked to do so by the Chief Constable. The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a valid point about requiring the committee to be set up only when it is needed. I understand the sense and value of that, but what should be the trigger for the establishment of such a committee? The right hon. Gentleman for Upper Bann might like to reflect on that in his reply. It may be that the principle of a committee is anathema to his party; that would present a different set of issues. However, if the committee is potentially workable, he might like to consider the matter. I am genuinely interested to hear what Committee members have to say about it.

If the board asks for sensitive information requiring limited distribution, the Chief Constable should not be torn between his statutory duty to account to the board and his other duty to protect information that, if disclosed, could endanger someone's life. Similarly, should the Secretary of State have the power to require the board to set up such a committee? At present, the Bill allows him the discretion to require the Chief Constable to share certain information with the committee rather than with the rest of the board. If no such committee existed, that discretion would be fettered. Is it preferable in such circumstances for the Secretary of State to be forced to choose between withholding the information from the board and sharing it with the full board? Would it not be better for him to have the option of knowing that there would be a small committee with which the information could be shared? It is the consideration of those issues that led us to introduce an amendment in another place.

I have listened to the Committee's views on the proposals, and there may be more to say on it. I am reluctant to support amendment No. 91 as currently framed, but I will reflect further on what has been said and, if appropriate, reconsider for Report.

Amendment No. 92 proposes that all members of the committee should be vetted by the security service. I do not agree with that. It is important that the members of the committee are selected not by a Government agency but by their cross-community

peers on the board. Such selection gives them credibility.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not think that amendment No. 92 proposes that the board members should be selected by a Government agency. It says only that steps should be taken to ensure that the people who are elected by their community conform to the reasonable norms of a civilised society, which terrorists do not.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the effect of the amendment would be the same. As members of the board, the duties placed on them would require them to behave responsibly in dealing with such information.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sorry to hear the Minister say that, because we were getting on rather well. If the effect of amendment No. 92 would be to exclude terrorists from the process, that is a good reason for supporting it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I do not share that view. It is worth remembering that board members also have a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in any way that would infringe an individual's article 2 rights under the European convention on human rights. When the Chief Constable has shared with them information, the disclosure of which could put an individual in danger, board members have a duty to protect that individual. That duty is supplemented by the offence that we just discussed in debating clause 20.

I accept the point that a limited amount of information relating to national security may be shared with the small committee and that that is a different category of information. However, it would only be shared at the discretion of the Chief Constable and/or the Secretary of State, both of whom would want to exercise their judgement on how to strike the balance between safeguarding the national interest and ensuring openness and transparency.

As such, there is no fundamental difference from the present position. It is already the Chief Constable's discretion, under the terms of section 59, to decide whether to share such information with the board or to refer the request to the Secretary of State, and it is already the Secretary of State's discretion to decide whether to uphold the board's original request. The creation of the small committee does not change that principle. However, it provides a third option for the Chief Constable and Secretary of State that would keep the sensitive information on a smaller circulation, a situation to which my hon. Friends will be unused. It is an occasion on which size really does matter; it is the size of the committee, not its individual members, that is important.

Amendment No. 100, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, would increase the committee's size from five to seven members. The value of the small committee is that its membership is significantly smaller than the board, and I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne on this point. At five, its membership is significantly smaller than the board, which keeps the circulation of sensitive information to fewer people. The Bill proposes that the committee should have five members, selected by and broadly representative of the board. It also proposes that at

least one of the chairman and vice-chairman should sit on the committee, although given the cross-community nature of their roles, the board might decide that both should sit on the committee. However, that would be a matter for further debate.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On the Minister's point about the cross-community nature of the chair and vice-chair, will she accept that both the chair and vice-chair have been quite explicit about where they are coming from—their community identification? The vice-chair is unequivocally and unapologetically a trenchant and specific nationalist, but the chairman has specifically said that he is not to be described as a Unionist.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I acknowledge that, but the chair and vice-chair have often been involved on occasions when the board has developed a small committee to address an issue. An effort has been made to ensure that each political party is represented and that a reasonable spread of politically independent members is included. However, a committee of seven board members would go too far, and I cannot support my hon. Friend's amendment. However, as with amendment No. 91, I shall reflect further on points made in the debate.

Government amendment No. 77 will correct an omission from clause 21 as introduced in another place, and is broadly technical.

The hon. Member for Wycombe asked which functions would be affected. We had nothing specific in mind other than giving the board flexibility to task the committee with other work if it so chose. The provision will not override the board's existing powers to set up committees under paragraph 24 of schedule 1 of the 2000 Act.

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

I wonder about the possible effect that the process of choosing, selection or election—whatever it may be—of five members of the board could have on the board's operation, given its composition. Will the Minister tell us the means by which the decision will be made? She said that vetting is out, and I agree with that totally. However, that could lead to another form of lobbying, which in turn could lead to horse-trading, which might be very dangerous. I am worried about that—has the Minister given it any thought?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Indeed I have. I know that the board has drawn together small numbers of its larger membership to deal with difficult issues. The board has established the balance to which I referred by consensus among its members. My views on the shape of the committee and the mechanism that would trigger it are not set in stone and I have found the debate valuable. We have not worked through the way in which the process would operate—the board would largely determine that. It would bring together a small committee chosen by its peers—the board members.

The debate has been far wider than I expected when I prepared my response but I am grateful for the views expressed. I hope to return to the matter on Report.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann winds up the debate, may I

say that I would be willing to go for the jugular of some Government Ministers, but not others? On this occasion, I ask the Minister to reflect carefully. Did I understand her correctly? When I talked about positive vetting, I pointed out that the changes that were being resisted would exclude terrorists. I did not say ''ex-terrorists'' or ''reformed terrorists''; I said that it would exclude terrorists. The Minister, if I heard her correctly, said that it would. I asked whether the intention was to allow in terrorists—not ex-terrorists or former terrorists. Even in a good-humoured Committee in which there is a good exchange of friendly views, there comes the odd moment when something like this is said. Whether I have misunderstood what was said or whether it was a slip of the tongue, I would like to get the matter clarified. Hansard will say tomorrow that a Government Minister said that it is their intention to allow terrorists into the process. That is what I think I heard. Rather than wrongly accuse the Minister, I would like to her reflect and to put the record straight.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's analysis of my opposition to the vetting arrangements. It is important to bear in mind that paragraph 4(5) of part 11 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act states:

''The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as a member or as chairman or vice-chairman of the Board if satisfied that—

(d) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.''

If it became clear that there was such a person on the board, it would be perfectly within the power of the Secretary of State to remove him from it. I hope that that allays the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. It certainly was not my intention to put anything on the record that was not strictly accurate.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I took the opportunity during the debate to refresh my mind on what exactly went on in the other place. What the Minister said about the origin of the clause does not give the whole truth of the matter. In another place, representatives of my party and of the Conservative party expressed considerable concern about the changes to allow disclosure of additional material to the court. We have argued against the changes proposed in the legislation that tilt the disclosure balance more in favour of the board and diminish the ability of the Secretary of State to resist disclosure. Such changes could put the Chief Constable under considerable pressure to disclose highly sensitive material.

Noble Lords in the other place argued the same point, and the Government said that it was partly in response to those concerns that they were introducing this clause. That is not to say that this clause and its contents were introduced at the request of my hon. Friends or by representatives of the Conservative party in another place. A subtle shift is seen in that. There was no consultation on how to deal with those concerns, and my noble Friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass took exception to that when the matter was raised in the other place. There is a subtle distinction

between what the Minister presented and what actually happened.

The Minister acknowledged that the Policing Board was not consulted, nor were persons on the board. Friends on the Policing Board representing my party took grave exception to the proposal, just as they do not agree with the disclosure provisions in the Bill. My friends on the Policing Board are not pressing for those disclosure provisions. I suspect that the same is true of the representatives of the Democratic Unionist party. The disclosure provisions are a result from pressure from another quarter. Consequently, the committee, which results from those pressures, can be traced back to that quarter too.

I do not know the precise genesis of the idea of a committee. I asked the Minister to tell us a bit more about that, but she did not do so. Perhaps she will reflect on that at some point. She has offered an olive branch, and I do not wish to spurn it, so we shall see what can be done to consider the matter more closely. However, I think that the concept of the committee is bad.

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for jogging my memory about the provisions in subsection (3), on which the hon. Member for Wycombe, too, dwelt at some length. I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen did that, because the provisions are dangerous. There is provision in legislation for the Policing Board to form committees, and it has formed a large number of committees that are functioning well. However, there is no provision under existing legislation for functions of the Policing Board to be delegated to a committee. The committees that the Policing Board has so far formed are considering matters that will then be brought back to the board as a whole. There is a considerable danger that functions will be vested in a committee, and that the committee will then discharge part or all of the functions of the Policing Board. That is not a good idea.

One of the things that I might welcome were it not for a certain distaste for the source of the idea is the fact that the report was rightly critical of the Police Authority in that respect. As far as I can recall, Patten does not touch on that aspect of the old Police Authority. The old Police Authority tended to operate in a way that the clause would permit. The chairman and a few senior members of the board of the authority did the real work. The membership of the authority generally had little input into what happened, and they were frequently excluded by decisions being taken elsewhere. The provisions in question open the door to exactly replicating some of the vices of the old Police Authority within the Policing Board.

I am glad that other hon. Members have jogged my memory and I urge the Minister, in reflecting on the matter again, to think very hard about proposed new subsection (1A)(b) of the 2000 Act detailed in subsection (3), about which I am fairly certain my friends on the Policing Board would be upset. They would not want a situation to arise whereby functions of the Policing Board were transferred to, and discharged by, a five-man committee, which would be able to exercise those functions without reference to

the board as a whole. That would go some way towards recreating some of the vices of the old Police Authority, which would be a bad thing.

I emphasise that aspect of the provisions, which is not necessary for the function that the Minister advanced as a reason for having the committee. She touched on that only to say that there would be greater flexibility. However, flexibility might be used as an excuse for introducing something that in the long run would entirely change the character of the Policing Board, and that would be bad. The Minister should return to that.

I think that the concept of the committee is wrong in principle because of the creation of two separate classes of member. However, it is also wrong because it has been created simply to handle material that should not be before the board in the first place. If there is a need to ensure the confidentiality of that material, that underlines our concerns about the disclosure provisions and the lack of safeguards elsewhere. Rather than introduce the committee, it would be much better if the Minister were to reconsider the information disclosure provisions generally, and perhaps follow through on the suggestions that she made on how the provision would be modified.

Because the Minister indicated a willingness to think further on the matter and because I have presented the arguments on the provisions of subsection (3) to her for the first time, I do not think that it would be appropriate to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 77, in

clause 21, page 14, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) handling information supplied to it by a person conducting an inquiry under section 60 or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry;'.—[Jane Kennedy]

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We now come to amendment Nos. 101, 102 and 103.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Can you help me? Sometimes I do not wholly understand the details that I am given. Amendment No. 101 to clause 22 would leave out lines 10 to 13 exclusively on page 15. My eye goes to the Bill. Amendment No. 103 would leave out lines 20 to 30, which would make sense if read inclusively. If it meant lines 20 to 29, the amendment would not make sense. To make sense of our debate, if lines 10 to 13 inclusive is the correct proposal and lines 20 to 30 inclusive are correct, the first amendment does not make sense. If it refers to lines 10 to 12 and line 13 stays in, amendment No. 103 would not make sense—or have I misunderstood the amendments?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I accept the point. The best guidance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to allow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak to the

amendment. If the matter is not clear to him after that, we will revisit it.

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

I told you, Mr. Benton, that I was not happy with the drafting of the amendments. It is my fault and I take full responsibility for it. I informed you and the Minister that I would withdraw them in the interests of accuracy and speed.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The amendment is not moved.

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

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

When I read the clause, I was worried that the information that

''ought not to be disclosed''

was defined as ''sensitive personnel information''. I was rather surprised that the definition of personnel information was relatively restricted. That worries me, because I had assumed that included in that definition would use the word ''personal'' as distinct from ''personnel'', given that such information could be of a sensitive nature, too. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister why ''personal'' information is not on the list.

Currently, the information relates to an individual holding a job, an application for it and the appointment. As I read it, it also relates to the qualifications that someone may or may not have for that job. I am not sure that that is something that needs to be excluded. There could be circumstances in which, if an inquiry is being held into the appropriateness of the delegation of something, then it becomes quite appropriate to know that person's qualifications or what was said and done when the person was appointed to that job. I can see what is meant by sensitive personal information, but I do not like the definition. Will the Minister comment on that?

We have said before that there is a very real risk that certain information about people—not necessarily about their jobs or their technical qualifications, but about the person they are—ought not to be disclosed, especially where that could put that person at some individual risk. Why is only personnel information contained in the clause rather than personnel and personal information? Why should personal information be included only because part of the job arrangements will sometimes be relevant?

On clause stand part, I am concerned that clause 22(2)(b) states that,

''any matter into which inquiry is to be made is a sensitive personnel matter''.

I suspect that the Minister can see where I am going. What does ''sensitive'' mean? That is a fairly subjective statement. Some people might think that something is sensitive and other people might think that it is not. Where is the arbiter to whom that would be referred? Is there a legal definition of sensitive? I keep saying that I am not a lawyer but on this occasion I hazard a guess that there is not a legal definition of sensitive and that it has yet to be settled.

The Minister might like to think about providing a definition of sensitive, or providing some mechanism whereby any doubt about whether the information is so sensitive that such it ought to be excluded can be

tested against an independent arbiter. Alternatively, the Minister could provide of a definition of her own understanding of sensitive. I am interested in her views on those matters.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The original change from ''personal'' to ''personnel'' was introduced because it brings the wording of the law explicitly in line with the wording used by the Patten report. The hon. Gentleman's question is valid: what sensitive personnel information did we have in mind when drafting that subsection? I offer this example. The information disclosed in vetting applications includes detailed information on an individual's financial circumstances. It can even include information on an individual's sexual behaviour and other intimate details. That is the information that we had in mind when we discussed sensitive personnel information.

Such information is clearly very sensitive, and although it might not put an individual in danger, it does deserve to be protected. I do not mean that the board should not know whether an individual has been vetted or what the outcome of that was, but the board does not need to know all the information discussed in the vetting interview. The individual who would determine whether such information would be disclosed would be the Chief Constable. That relates to our earlier discussions, which I do not intend to revisit now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Approval of proposals relating to inquiries

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in

clause 11, page 8, line 23, leave out '(2) and' and insert '(1A) to'.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.