Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 4 March 2003.

Standing Committee E

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

We seek your indulgence, Mr. Benton, with regard to a slight change in our proceedings. You will appreciate that talks are taking place in Northern Ireland now, and it would facilitate our discussions here if the members of the Committee who are currently involved in those talks were present.

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As members of the official Opposition, we were consulted about this matter yesterday. We have no objections to such a proposal. We accept that the discussions have continued longer than was first thought necessary. It would be proper for the Minister of State to be in Committee for further consideration of the Bill, but we accept that it is sensible for her to be in Northern Ireland for the talks. We have no complaints about that. The substance of what is being discussed there is not a matter for us.

However, the pertinent subject that I raised when we debated the original programming motion is a matter for us. I had an inkling that we might be in such a position this morning. If I understood the newspapers correctly, part of the talks that are taking place concern policing in Northern Ireland. It is not for the Committee to argue whether it is right or wrong to hold such discussions. However, it is essential for the Government to understand that in agreeing to their request, we are not agreeing that the Committee should in future be used as a vehicle for implementing what may be agreed over the next 24 or 48 hours. I made it clear at the beginning that our proceedings in Committee concern a Bill that started in the House of Lords. It was discussed fully there, and it was discussed on Second Reading, when the whole of the House of Commons could participate. It is now being considered in detail here.

I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that when we resume consideration of the Bill, it is the Bill, and the Bill alone, that we will be dealing with. If the Government reach agreement with the parties in Northern Ireland to change policing, that should be the subject of separate legislation, so that both Houses of Parliament can have a full debate on the Second Reading of any such Bill.

I am grateful that we were consulted yesterday, but we were given some dates and times when the Committee should sit again. That was not a matter for consultation; it seemed a little like a ''take it or leave it'' statement. In order for a Programming Sub-Committee to meet when there is not universal agreement, proper notice has to be given. I should be

grateful for your ruling, Mr. Benton. While supporting the Minister's proposal that further consideration be adjourned, I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that Her Majesty's Opposition agree with the other matters that have been proposed. They should be matters for consultation.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I am advised that the remit of the Programming Sub-Committee will fall under my purview. It is legitimate to have the suggested motion put to the Committee as an alternative, and I understand that if further consideration of that is needed, it will come under my remit.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

In that case may I indicate to you, Mr. Benton, and your co-Chairman, that my support for this morning's motion does not imply support at this stage for any other things that may or may not have been informally mentioned to you, to the Clerks or to us? I do not suggest that we will automatically oppose such things, but we need to complete the Committee's business. For example, it was suggested that we meet on Thursday. I have not had the chance to ask my colleagues whether they can physically manage to attend on Thursday. They made themselves available today in all good faith—although they are not here now because I did not want to drag them in at 5 to 9, as I knew that we would support the motion.

My party and I readily support the motion to adjourn. However, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that we shall not use the Committee to do anything related to the negotiations that are occurring. The negotiations should be separate. Before we reach an arrangement to complete the work of the Committee, the usual channels should have a good chance to talk about that and to report back to you, Mr. Benton.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I have noted carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. If there is fundamental disagreement at any stage, I shall be happy, in consultation with the learned Clerk, to consider anything that he puts forward.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Liberal Democrats also understand the reasons for the motion. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that the talks in Northern Ireland had gone on longer than necessary—but shouting will always be better than shooting, and if the talks lead to a significant step forward in the peace process, they are worth while.

I have two concerns, which are on roughly the same lines as what we heard from the hon. Member for Spelthorne. I have mentioned before the enormous difficulty of scrutinising properly legislation that relates to Northern Ireland. That is simply because of the compressed nature of the legislation and the fact that consideration of different things often happens at the same time. This situation presents the Government with an opportunity to be more respectful of the pressures that they are putting on the Opposition. As we are supporting their motion, they should ensure that they are considerate towards our request to have the space to do the jobs that we have been elected to do.

As the points made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne implied, several of us feel that the Government have been racing ahead with legislation at breakneck speed and have played fast and loose with the processes of Parliament. They have used the suspension as an opportunity to say, ''Take it or leave it,'' again and again about legislation that in Northern Ireland might have been subject to considerable consultation, but has not been deeply debated in this House.

The Liberal Democrats ask for the programme motion to be explicit, for no other reason than the fact that our Northern Irish colleagues have difficulty attending the Committee. We, and the Conservatives, would be extremely unhappy if the Committee was used to push something through that has been unilaterally agreed by one side or another in the peace talks. I want the Minister's assurance that there is no intention to use the Committee as a vehicle for something that might not achieve broad cross-community support.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I heard what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that there had been discussions and consultation with the official Opposition, and I wonder whether the non-appearance of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) indicates that there was also consultation with them. There was no such consultation with me or with my party. Having said that, I have no particular gripe. I would support any honest endeavour to ensure that all members of the Committee can be present at its sittings. However, I would have deep misgivings and worries if the Committee were reconvened in order to consider further new amendments, which are currently—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman indirectly. It was made clear to me yesterday that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had said that he could not be here, and was content with what is happening this morning. I enter the caveat that that information was second hand, from the usual channels. It appears that the other Unionist party was consulted, and I am shocked to hear that the hon. Gentleman was not. I sincerely hope that the usual channels will note that all parties should be involved in such discussions.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. However, as I said in a previous sitting, there seems to be an ongoing attempt not to consult some parties in Northern Ireland, especially those that fundamentally disagree with the approach and the basis on which the Government are building and reconstituting present institutions. That should not happen. Irrespective of the party political position, there should be a requirement to consult widely, regardless of whether people are in favour of, or fundamentally opposed to, the Government position.

I am in an awkward position, because some of the clauses that were to be discussed this morning go to the very root of the problems that we are experiencing

in Northern Ireland. In our debate on new clauses 1, 2 and 3, we would have discussed the discriminatory nature of recruitment to the Police Service. I am happy to accommodate hon. Members, but I shall fire a clear warning shot across the Government's bows: I earnestly hope that when we reconvene, we deal with the business of the House, rather than the business of the House plus other direct unilateral discussions such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), which subsequently become part of the business of the Committee.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments, and for their support for adjourning the Committee this morning, which is helpful. I take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, although he may wish to clarify one of them. He said that he understood that talks had gone on ''longer than is necessary''. I am sure that all of us hope that the Assembly will be running as soon as possible, and agree that talks should take as long as necessary.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for the chance to correct that, if I did say it. I intended to say ''longer than expected''.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I thought that that was probably what the hon. Gentleman meant to say, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to clarify any confusion.

I apologise to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) who was not consulted; the hon. the Member for Newry and Armagh was not consulted either. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann indicated his support for adjourning the Committee today. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for security was in talks herself, and perhaps events moved too quickly. We did our best to consult people, and I apologise to the hon. Member for East Londonderry for any oversights.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I question the phraseology that the Minister used in connection with the discussions that took place between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and, presumably, someone from the Minister's office. She said that the right hon. Gentleman had indicated support for the Adjournment. Does that mean that he was, or was not, consulted?

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I was not present when the conversation took place, so the hon. Gentleman is testing my knowledge. My understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman was content, and that he was consulted, but the matter is one for the Minister responsible for security, who was involved in the conversation. I cannot repeat verbatim conversations that took place when I was not present. My understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman is content.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

May I raise an issue on which the Minister should reflect—on behalf, I suspect, of all those who work within the usual channels? She should be aware that if there are to be discussions with any political party in the House, those should be through the usual channels and not through the spokesman, the Minister or the shadow Minister, because that is the way to confusion.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I am having my knuckles rapped, Mr. Benton. I was not present when the conversations took place, but I understand that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is content for there to be an adjournment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer.

As for the date and time set by the Programming Sub-Committee, the Government will wish, through the usual channels, to be as accommodating as possible to hon. Members. That is a matter for the usual channels to discuss, and for me to comment on it would be inappropriate.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised specific concerns about scrutiny. The tone and context of the Committee to date has been such that the Minister of State has welcomed opportunities for scrutiny—our discussions and debates have shown that—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not still think that there is inadequate scrutiny. He raised the issue of the 22 pieces of Northern Ireland legislation that have been introduced in this House since the suspension of the Assembly. The Secretary of State made the commitment that legislation that had been started in the Assembly and was going through it—legislation on which the Assembly had consulted and which, in some cases, had even gone through Committee—should continue and not be lost. I appreciate that that puts pressure on hon. Members; it also puts pressure on Ministers. It is right, however, that the people of Northern Ireland should not lose

legislation to which the Assembly was committed and which was already going through the usual processes.

I have no knowledge about further amendments; it is the Minister responsible for security who should address that matter, and she will write to hon. Members about it, or otherwise contact them. I am sorry that I am unable to help. No signs or inferences should be read into that—I just do not have the information. As soon as I have the information I will ensure that it is made available to hon. Members.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I readily accept that the Minister does not know the ins and outs of what has been said by other people, but would she undertake to relay to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State the fact that Committee members would take the greatest exception to any attempt being made to bring anything back from the agreement and include it in the Bill. As long as the message is relayed back, I am content.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

The hon. Gentleman is quick to get to his feet this morning. Had he waited a further two seconds I would have got to my point, which is that all the comments made this morning will be relayed through the usual channels, and to the Minister responsible for security. I shall be happy to ensure that that is done. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Committee should now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Nine o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I thank the Committee for its forbearance. I apologise for the fact that certain staff and members of the Committee had difficulty in entering the Room. Such vicissitudes are sent to try us.

I shall explain to the Committee what has happened, bearing in mind that we are now on the record. This morning, certain members of the Committee were, for wholly understandable reasons, not available to be part of our proceedings. It was decided that this morning's sitting would be cancelled and that the Programming Sub-Committee would meet this afternoon, which it has done. I invite members of the Committee to consider the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee.

I wish exceptionally to place on the record a view that I have expressed privately to the Sub-Committee. As a Chairman, I consider that proceedings of a Standing Committee should take precedence over all other matters. Members of the Committee—as we all have in the House of Commons, given our conflicting duties—must decide whether to be elsewhere or here. It is my personal view that the Committee should and could properly have sat this morning, with or without the Minister or other hon. Members present, however senior they may be. That decision was not taken.

I have discussed the matter with members of the Sub-Committee. I accept entirely their view that, because of the circumstances that have now developed, it would be unreasonable—and would become a matter of emotion—for the Committee to sit on Thursday simply because hon. Members have, in good faith, entered into other commitments. The Opposition Whip has courteously agreed to report my views to his side of the House of Commons, and the Minister has courteously agreed to report my views to her side of the House. I, in turn, intend to report my views to the Chairman of Ways and Means. As has been said, we are in uncharted waters and such an issue needs properly to be resolved by the House and its relevant Committees.

The Programming Sub-Committee has now agreed a draft resolution. I apologise to members of the Committee that there is no printed version of it available, but we have had to move in some haste. Will the Minister explain the resolution and her thinking behind it?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move,

That the order of the Standing Committee of 25 February 2003 be amended as follows—

(1) in paragraph (2) for ''Six sittings'' substitute ''Eight sittings'';

(2) in the Table, for the entry for the 6th sitting substitute:

6th

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

—

7th

—

8th

5.00 p.m.

In moving the resolution, I am grateful to all members of the Committee and, through the good offices of the usual channels, to the Opposition parties and members of the Social Democrat and Labour party who sit on the Government side of the House of Commons for their co-operation. As a result of representations that the Government received following the developments that are currently taking place in Belfast, we felt that we should accommodate those Committee members who feel strongly about some of the issues that we are debating and who wish to be present. I will report your comments to the Government, Mr. Gale, but because of the circumstances on this occasion, it was felt that we should ask the Committee and the House through the programming motion to move the timing of our further considerations. That is why the motion is before us today. As we are timetabled to sit on Thursday, there will be consideration of a motion to make the move from Thursday to next Tuesday.

It is important that I put on the record that the Government do not intend to use the further time that we have to consider the Bill to bring forward any new items at this stage of our deliberations. We will consider issues arising from our discussions so far on Report: that is when we could consider further new matters, such as Government new clauses. The Government do not intend to use this delay for those ends. It is in good faith that we seek to move this business to next Tuesday, and to allow a full and detailed scrutiny of the clauses in our deliberations next week. I will be happy to respond to questions from Committee members.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I should make it plain that my remarks were not intended to imply any censure of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who could not be present today, or of the Minister or any other Committee member who felt for other reasons that they could not attend. The situation is straightforward. The House of Commons must consider circumstances such as this and reach conclusions about how they should be addressed in future.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I wish to repeat publicly what I said to you a short while ago, Mr. Gale. I will convey your views to the appropriate people, and I agree that it would have been helpful for those of us who had to grapple with this matter over the course of the morning to have had a precedent to look back on. However, if the net result of our experience benefits people in future, it will not have been wholly in vain.

I will not delay the Committee for longer than is necessary. However, as we are now in a public sitting I must repeat the views of Her Majesty's Opposition. We are implacably opposed to the general principle of there being programme motions on the Order Paper. We have had to agree to another one today, and we were as opposed in principle to that as we were to all the others.

We are also opposed in principle to dividing programmed Committee sittings by guillotines part of the way through them. It has already twice been demonstrated in this Committee that we have not had enough time to deal with matters because clauses have been guillotined, and we are being allowed only two sittings on Tuesday to try to complete a substantial part of the Bill. I will not go into details, but I wish to put it clearly on the record that we do not support the principle of what the Government are seeking to do.

However, we are where we are. The Government are seeking to substitute one wrong thing with an equally wrong thing, but that is the same situation on different days and it would be churlish to kick up too much of a fuss. Therefore, having registered our objection, we will not seek to divide the Committee on the motion. It would also be churlish not to put on the record my gratitude to the usual channels for listening to what we have to say and responding helpfully.

The Minister said that the Government do not intend to bring any new business before the Committee when it sits on Tuesday, but left open the question of what might happen on Report. Should the Government seek to introduce on Report anything arising out of the discussions currently taking place, we will oppose it, because the Bill received full consideration in the other place as drafted.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I wish to ensure that I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If an item resulting from the talks were brought forward that had complete consensus, would Her Majesty's Opposition oppose it as a matter of course?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

No. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to clarify what I am saying. We would oppose the process and judge the issue on its merits, depending on what has been agreed. Should something entirely new be agreed as part of the peace process over the next few hours or days, we contend that the matter should be subject to the full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament by way of a new Bill. Anything less than full consideration in both Houses would be an affront to democracy.

I am not saying that I would be against what is agreed, but the Bill must not be used as a vehicle for

something for which it was not intended on Second Reading in the House of Commons and when it was fully debated in another place. I am guessing that the Minister will not give us an assurance that such a thing will not be attempted on Report, so I wish to put on the record that on principle we would not support such a course.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

For my part, I am content with the terms of the motion. As you said, Mr. Gale, we are in uncharted waters. We are also dealing with matters that have high stakes. It is to the credit of House of Commons procedures and members of the Committee that we are able to approach the problem with the flexibility that is required to leave all options open.

Reference has already been made to the Minister, and I am grateful to her for stating the Government's intention not to introduce further proposals in Committee. Obviously, the implication is that proposals will be introduced on Report. In that case, I reserve my position. Those who manage the business of the House of Commons can recommit a Bill to Standing Committee after Report if necessary. The Government might find that this is one occasion on which that avenue has merit. Bearing in mind that the Bill has already been considered in the other place, there will be little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive's proposals after the Bill has been considered on Report in the House of Commons.

I am in accord with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and wish to place on the record my gratitude for the way in which the usual channels handled the matter, especially the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has been understanding and accommodating.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the order of the Standing Committee of 25 February 2003 be amended as follows—

(1) in paragraph (2) for ''Six sittings'' substitute ''Eight sittings'';

(2) in the Table, for the entry for the 6th sitting substitute:

6th

—

7th

—

8th

5.00 p.m.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Three o'clock till Thursday 6 March at five minutes to Nine o'clock.