Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 27 March 2003.

Clause 23 — Disclosure of Information and Holding of Inquiries

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 1, leave out clause 23.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 9 [Clause 23], at end insert—

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

Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 9 [Clause 23], at end insert—

'(d) the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Amendment No. 62, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 23], at end insert—

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

Amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 23], at end insert—

'(d) the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

Amendment No. 59, in page 15, line 31 [Clause 22], leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Amendment No. 83, in page 15, line 46 [Clause 22], leave out paragraph (c).

Government amendment No. 32.

Amendment No. 52, in page 12, line 1, leave out Clause 18.

Government amendment No. 9.

Amendment No. 56, in page 12, line 8 [Clause 18], leave out

'it appears to the Chief Constable that'.

Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 78, in page 12, line 10 [Clause 18], at end insert—

'(2A) Subsection (1) does not require the Chief Constable to supply any information to the Board if it appears to the Chief Constable that the information ought not to be disclosed on the grounds that it would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations and operations.'.

Government amendment No. 11.

Amendment No. 53, in page 12, line 14 [Clause 18], at end insert

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

Amendment No. 79, in page 12, line 14 [Clause 18], at end insert

'or would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations'.

Government amendment No. 12.

Amendment No. 57, in page 12, line 19 [Clause 18], leave out 'in his opinion'.

Amendment No. 58, in page 12, line 20 [Clause 18], after 'would', insert 'in his opinion'.

Amendment No. 54, in page 12, line 21 [Clause 18], leave out 'or'.

Amendment No. 55, in page 12, line 23 [Clause 18], at end insert

'or

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

Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 10, leave out Clause 9.

Amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 13 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(1A) In subsection (2) at the beginning insert 'Except where subsection (2A) applies

(1B) After subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply where a longer period for the purposes of (2)(b) is not agreed by the Chief Constable and the Board.

(2B) Where there is no agreement between the Chief Constable and the Board for the purposes of (2)(b) a report shall be made within a longer period as may be determined by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.".'.

Amendment No. 71, in page 6, line 19 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(3A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State a requirement to submit a report under subsection (1) if it appears to the Chief Constable that a report in compliance with the requirement would contain information that ought not to be disclosed because it would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations and operations.'.

Amendment No. 72, in page 6, line 27 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(aa) exempting the Chief Constable from the obligation to report to the Board information the disclosure of which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations;'.

Government amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 40, in page 6, line 38 [Clause 9], leave out 'or (b)' and insert ', (b) or (c)'.

Amendment No. 41, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 9], at end insert

'or

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

Amendment No. 73, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Amendment No. 42, in page 7, line 32, leave out Clause 10.

Amendment No. 74, in page 7, line 40 [Clause 10], at end insert—

'(2A) The Chief Constable may refer to the Secretary of State the decision of the Board to cause an inquiry held under this section if it appears to the Chief Constable that such an inquiry ought not to be held because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 7 [Clause 10], at end insert

'or

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

Amendment No. 75, in page 8, line 7 [Clause 10], at end insert—

'(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Government amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 80, in page 14, line 11 [Clause 21], at end insert—

'(d) the Chief Constable informs the person that, in his opinion, the information would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 19 to 22.

Amendment No. 81, in page 14, line 18 [Clause 21], at end insert—

'(c) the Chief Constable informs the Board or the Committee under section 33A(6) or 59 (4H) that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind that would, or would be likely, to prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 23 to 29.

Amendment No. 86, in page 8, line 25, leave out Clause 11.

Amendment No. 44, in page 8, line 36 [Clause 11], leave out subsection (4).

Government amendment No. 8.

Amendment No. 76, in page 10, line 10 [Clause 12], at end insert—

(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice ongoing police investigations or operations.'.

New clause 21—Majority of Board to approve inquiries under section 60—

'(1) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (procedure for decisions of Board relating to Inquiries under section 60) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) For subparagraph (5) substitute—

"(5) The Board shall not take any of the steps mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) unless a proposal to that effect has been approved by a majority of members of the Board.".

(3) For subparagraph (6) substitute—

"(6) The required number of members is a majority of the Board.".'.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am very happy indeed that the Government are responsible for most of the amendments that we are going to discuss. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I are responsible for a minority of them—I hasten to add that it is only a minority. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend, who has commitments at home in Northern Ireland, although my colleagues will help throughout the afternoon. Of course, when Democratic Unionist party Members take up their positions at the end of the Bench—we hope that they will do so at some stage—they will make a very constructive contribution.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Of course, we regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but may I assure her that this House, as far as I can tell, is never happier than when she is here and on her feet? [Interruption.]

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I am so pleased with those remarks, especially as they appear to have been generously endorsed by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). I am delighted that they have endorsed his comments.

I should like to preface my remarks about amendment No. 60 and associated amendments by reminding the House and the Minister in particular of words that she used only a few days ago in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill. On 17 March—that is, St. Patrick's day, when, if my memory serves me correctly, we were all blessed with great generosity of spirit in this House—she said:

"there had been a catastrophic breakdown of trust"

that

"made the effective functioning of devolved government impossible."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 641.]

Thus, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—now the Minister without Portfolio—had to make what was a difficult, controversial and, I think, courageous decision to suspend the Assembly.

Against the background of a huge and dramatic breakdown in trust, which the Minister rightly identified, may I remind her and her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that it is absolutely essential to build back that trust? When we go to the Assembly elections, which are set in stone, concrete or whatever—they have been set in tablets in this House—for 29 May, if Sinn Fein decides to come into the Policing Board after acts of completion, as I hope it will, the composition of the board, which now has 19 members, will change. There are currently 10 political members and nine independents. After the Assembly election, the composition of the political members will inevitably change. If confidence is to be rebuilt in the communities, we must have confidence in the Sinn Fein members of that Policing Board.

It is therefore not helpful that the Bill removes one of the four original grounds on which the Chief Constable could withhold information from the entire board, reducing their number to three. I shall not rehearse the arguments that we heard in Standing Committee, but the net effect of the amendments would be to restore the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to its original form. Hon. Members will know that section 59 of that Act sets out the four grounds on which the Chief Constable is entitled to withhold information from the entire Policing Board and also from the police ombudsman and from inquiries following reports to the Policing Board. It states that information should not be disclosed

"in the interests of national security . . . because it relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature"—

I emphasise that the word used is "personal", rather than "personnel"—

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

this is the key point—

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

In those four cases, the Chief Constable could exercise his discretion and refer the report to the Secretary of State rather than the Policing Board.

I greatly regret that, to bitter opposition, the Bill deletes the fourth of those grounds. I know that the old excuse is trotted out that maintaining the three conditions and dropping the fourth more closely reflects the much quoted Patten report. However, paragraph 6.22 of that report makes this recommendation:

"the Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service . . . The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts."

The Patten report has 20 chapters, chapter 20 consisting of a summary of all the firm recommendations. The exemptions applying to matters of national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts are not repeated as recommendations in that chapter. This is simply an explanation, rather than a definite, exhaustive list of circumstances in which the Chief Constable could withhold information from the Policing Board. I do not buy into the excuse—for that is what it is—that the Bill reflects the Patten report more closely than the 2000 Act did.

The Government have attempted to deal with the change in another way as well. They propose the establishment of a special committee in the Policing Board. Government amendment No. 31 places a duty on the board to establish such a committee in certain circumstances, but we want a discretion rather than a duty. In fact, to be honest, we do not want special committees at all. It is regrettable that the Government should use and quote from the Patten report when it suits them, for purposes of political expediency. The report contains no recommendation for the establishment of special committees, and we will oppose that move.

I ask the Government to reflect more carefully, and to reinstate the fourth ground on which the Chief Constable can withhold delicate information in the run-up to court proceedings. We do not want criminal proceedings to be jeopardised or undermined by the premature disclosure of such information to the board. The Minister should bear in mind what she rightly said about the catastrophic breakdown of confidence. That confidence must be restored, and if Sinn Fein chooses to sit on the board the process must be carried through and must be seen to be carried through.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We all know of her knowledge of these matters.

If I may say so, in a deliberately self-denigrating way, although I have been here for a number of years I have never entirely mastered the process by which amendments are called for voting purposes. I will leave it to the invisible ones to have a word with the Chair about the point at which my party would like to divide the House and express its view.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The visible one in the Chair will do his best to keep him informed.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am utterly confident of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relieved to learn that, in biblical terms, the cup passes from me.

My party is in considerable sympathy with amendments Nos. 60 and 61, to which the hon. Lady spoke so well, but I want to say something about amendments Nos. 84 and 85, tabled by members of my party. Clause 23 inserts a new section 76A in the 2000 Act, sometimes called the Mandelson Act, entitled "Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries". The new section would reduce the number of grounds for appeal by the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State under sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act from four to three.

Section 59 currently requires the Chief Constable to submit reports whenever he is required to do so by the Policing Board, but if he thinks that a report would contain information that ought not to be disclosed, there are four grounds on which he can refer such a requirement to the Secretary of State. He can do that if he thinks that the information should not be disclosed

"(a) in the interests of national security,

(b) because it relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature,

(c) because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law, or

(d) because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

The same four grounds apply to the setting up of inquiries under section 60 of the Act.

Under clause 23, the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal are that

"(a) it is in the interests of national security"

—not disclosing the information, that is—

"(b) the information is sensitive personnel information",

or information whose disclosure would be likely to put an individual in danger, and

(c) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law."

Crucially, the fourth ground has been abolished.

Throughout the Bill's passage so far, we have argued that the change could seriously undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the Chief Constable, who would now have a statutory obligation to provide the board with reports relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. That is unacceptable. Significantly, the Government have not pointed to a single deficiency in the current legislation, passed less than three years ago, that justifies the change. We appreciate the changes made to the Bill on Third Reading in the House of Lords, but they remain very much second best to retention of the existing appeal grounds.

Following our failure to reinsert the existing fourth ground, our amendments Nos. 84 and 85 offer the Government an alternative wording—although that should not imply any less support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down. For all practical purposes, our amendments are designed to achieve the same objective. They would give the Chief Constable a fourth ground for appeal, namely that the information requested under section 59

"would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."

That ought to be unobjectionable to anyone whose primary objective is policing that is free from undue political interference.

We are sympathetic to amendment No. 59, and we tabled amendment No. 83 ourselves. We cannot support the requirement in new sub-paragraph (1B)(c), proposed in clause 22(3), for any special committee set up to handle sensitive information supplied to it by the Chief Constable to be "as far as practicable . . . representative of the Board". Surely that is interfering too much in the internal affairs of the board. Put simply, we believe that that should be a matter for the chairman and deputy chairman of the board to decide. Surely, if we believe that the board is a grown-up body properly carrying out its functions, as Ministers have repeatedly said that it is, that sort of matter should be decided internally. That is what our amendment would allow.

I turn to amendment No. 52, with which we are broadly sympathetic, and to our amendments Nos. 78 and 79. It will come as no surprise that those amendments have an objective similar to amendments Nos. 84 and 85. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, clause 18 inserts new section 33A into the 2000 Act relating to the provision of information by the Chief Constable to the board. The clause sets it out that the Chief Constable is not required to supply information to the board on any of the grounds set out in the new section 76A and if it is information whose disclosure would be likely to put an individual in danger. That is not good enough, especially as new section 76A unamended contains only three restrictions and not the four that were in the 2000 Act.

As it stands, therefore, the board could request sensitive information relating to an ongoing investigation or operation and the Chief Constable would be required to oblige. For that reason, amendment No. 79 would provide the Chief Constable with the additional ground on which he is not required to supply information to the board—namely, that it ought not to be disclosed on the grounds that it

"would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."

Again, we believe that to be a sensible additional safeguard for the Chief Constable, solely in the interests of efficient and impartial policing.

Amendment No. 79 is basically consequential on amendment No. 78 in that, if amendment No. 79 were passed, it is right that the requirement set out in clause 18(6) should apply. That does exactly the same as Conservative amendment No. 78, except that it uses the wording for the ground of appeal in sections 59(3)(d) and 60(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, namely that

"it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

Accordingly, it has our backing.

Conservative amendment No. 70 arises out of a commitment given on Third Reading in another place by the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Currently, the Chief Constable is supposed to respond to any request for information within one month, though that period can be extended if the board agrees, yet there may be occasions on which the board and Chief Constable disagree.

As a result, on Third Reading in the Lords, Lord Williams indicated that the Government would change the code of practice on the conduct of the board under section 27(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, so that where there was no agreement between the Chief Constable and the board, and where the Chief Constable's concern relates to the impact of a particular time scale on the police's ability to prevent or to detect crime, that disagreement could be referred to Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. Amendment No. 70 merely gives added strength to the commitment made by the Lord Privy Seal by inserting it in section 50(2) of the 2000 Act.

When I moved the same amendment in Standing Committee, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office said that she had much sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment and that there was not much between the Government and the Opposition on the issue. The hon. Lady agreed then to reflect on what I said and consider whether we should return to the matter on Report. That non-controversial amendment would help to give greater substance to the commitment already given by the Government.

Conservative amendments Nos. 71 to 75 relate to clauses 9 and 10. Clauses 9 and 10 amend sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act relating to the provision of information and the holding of inquiries. Section 59 requires the Chief Constable to submit reports whenever required to do so by the Policing Board. If, however, the Chief Constable thinks that a report would contain information that ought not to be disclosed, there are currently four grounds under section 59(3) on which he can refer such a requirement to the Secretary of State. As the House is aware, subsection (2) of clause 9 restricts the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer requests for a report to the Secretary of State to those set out in new section 76A in clause 23.

Clause 10 makes similar changes to section 60 of the 2000 Act that deals with the initiation of an inquiry by the board following a report to it by the Chief Constable. Without rehearsing the same arguments again, because the same arguments apply, we believe that that is mistaken. It could seriously undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable, opening up the possibility of the board being allowed to conduct inquiries into matters that are currently the subject of police investigation. Our amendments would reinsert a fourth ground of appeal for the Chief Constable in sections 59 and 60 of the 2000 Act, so that he could refer requests for information or proposals for inquiries in circumstances where, in his opinion, it

"would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations".

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on a statement that was made by the Minister of State in Committee, on which he served, I am sure, very well, as he always does in Committee? She said that if anything that the board was doing should adversely affect the work of the police,

"it would be open to the Chief Constable to seek judicial review of the reasonableness of the board's request".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 2003; c. 67.]

Would it not be most regrettable and unfortunate if the Chief Constable had to waste his resources and take legal action against his Policing Board for a power that should properly be in the Bill and that was in the 2000 Act?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I could not agree more. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It should not be left open to the Chief Constable judicially to review the police board. The measure should be in the Bill as clear guidance to those concerned.

I support the amendments in the name of the hon. Lady's party: Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43. The amendments seek to achieve the same objective as the Conservative amendments by reinserting the fourth ground of appeal in clauses 9 and 10. Unlike our amendments, though, they use the wording from the 2000 Act.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 80 and 81. I am sorry if I am taking a little time but I should like to cover the entirety of the first group of amendments in one trip to the Dispatch Box. The amendments relate to clause 21, which inserts a new section 74A after section 74 of the 2000 Act in respect of restrictions on the disclosure of information. Our amendments add to the grounds on which the disclosure of information is restricted to include information that

"would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."

As in other parts of the Bill, we believe that to be a necessary restriction.

Amendment No. 76 amends clause 12, which deals with matters relating to the functions and powers of the police ombudsman. The purpose is mainly one of consistency. Whereas clause 12(4) refers to information that ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1) of clause 23, we believe that added to that ought to be

"information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice on-going police investigations or operations."

That would bring clause 12 into line with other parts of the Bill where we have moved similar amendments.

In passing, I offer my support to amendment No. 44, tabled by the Ulster Unionist party, and turn to our amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. The purpose of the new clause is straightforward; it is to ensure that the initiation of any reports or inquiries by the Policing Board is undertaken by a majority of the board. As the Bill stands, clause 11 amends the existing paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, relating to the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 following a report by the Chief Constable. Currently, no such inquiry can be held unless approved by the required number of members of the board, present and voting. Under paragraph 18(6) of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the required number of members of the board who need to be present is 10. That is a majority, as the board consists of 19 members.

Under clause 11, the required number of members of the board that need to be present is reduced from 10 to eight, so long as that is a majority of members present and voting. I refer to clause 11(2) and (3). We believe that the existing arrangement should remain unchanged and that when the board consists of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the required number of members present and voting to initiate an inquiry should be 10.

We believe that this is an unwarranted concession, aimed at making it easier for the board to initiate inquiries following a report from the Chief Constable. It makes it easier for those with excessive political zeal—or, indeed, those who wish the police no good whatever—to make the life of the Chief Constable intolerable. That is a particular worry, if and when Sinn Fein members take up their positions on the board. We believe that, taken with the reduction of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, this should be opposed.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Surely it cuts both ways; it is possible that there may be circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to have an inquiry. There should be flexibility there, also. Secondly, why does he feel that this necessarily will favour Sinn Fein?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has detected a slight partiality in my remarks. I do not intend to sustain that impression. I will content myself with the more objective view—that 10 is more appropriate as representing an overall majority. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—the former Secretary of State and largely the architect of the 2000 Act—said that he thought that 10 was possibly too small a number and that he heartily resisted any suggestions of going down to eight. I take the same stance and believe that he was correct.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"If one considers police authorities in most parts of the United Kingdom, most people would think it extraordinary that it would take only eight members of a board to bring about the instigation of what could be a very major and expensive inquiry with major long-term implications for the police. I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill, and the Government believed that the figure of 10 was very much on the low side. We made it absolutely clear that, if we conceded to an ever-lower figure, that would risk exposing the police to unreasonable political pressure that would reduce the credibility of any such decision by the board. After all, it is a major step to set up an inquiry and, if it can be agreed by eight out of 18 or 19 members, that is bound to reduce the credibility of the decision. If the power was unreasonably or improperly used, it could lead to an unravelling of confidence by the police and the public in the PSNI's governance. I have heard the reassurances offered by Ministers on that point, but I have yet to be fully convinced that this particular change is necessary or desirable." —[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 684–85.]

It is not just the right hon. Member for Hartlepool who supports our position. The Committee on the Administration of Justice—not an organisation that is always sympathetic to the pronouncements of Conservative politicians—in its submission to the Northern Ireland Select Committee said:

"We believe that, while the holding of inquiries is an important power, there is no reason to lay down such weighted voting procedures in legislation and we would recommend that decisions to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority."

As with other aspects of the Bill, the Government have not even sought to justify this change with regard to the efficiency of the board or the operational effectiveness of the police. They cannot point to any deficiency in the current legislation that warrants it. That is because this change is driven purely by politics and by the Government's desire to accommodate Sinn Fein and the SDLP at Weston Park in July 2001. The change proposed by the Government is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Our new clause would restore common sense and basic fairness to the Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a proposal that the membership of any committee should take a decision through a minority of its members can only be a recipe for dissension within the group as a whole, because those who opposed the minority decision could come back in force and reverse it? We would be creating conflict where we should be creating harmony.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I should probably go and sit in the fourth row back below the Gangway, because I am finding myself absolutely ad idem with the hon. Members who are currently in their places there.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observation that he might move to the fourth row back. This proposal does not deal with a simple minority of the committee but with a majority of those present and voting. The difference is crucial and should be remembered. How is it that the Government felt it necessary to deem the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to have got it wrong on 14 substantive elements of the Bill that was written in 2000? That is why we now find ourselves going through another process of legislation. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any explanation why what was right in 2000 is wrong now. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool moved heaven and earth to get the 2000 Act, in its present form, on to the statute book, and the Government have produced almost no evidence that it needs amending. Many people who are much more likely to be listened to than me have described it as "Patten enacted". My party did not come to the Patten proposals with any great enthusiasm, but we are prepared to live in the world in which we are, and if the consensus is that Northern Ireland should be policed as faithfully as possible in accordance with the principles of Patten, it seems to me that the 2000 Act is closer to Patten than the measure that is now before us.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In defence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not here but was a very good Secretary of State, it is a fact that, when the Policing Board was being set up in the autumn of 2000, the Irish Government, the British Government, the American Government and the Catholic Church all said that the 2000 Act and the implementation plan embodied both the letter and the spirit of the Patten report. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to criticise him.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Were it possible to gild the lily, that contribution just did. Once again, I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In the absence of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, I would gladly speak highly of his discharge of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was a case of an extremely able man doing his best, and his best was not bad at all.

I have given way from time to time, and I accept that in the spirit of this place, but it is probably time for me to draw my remarks to a conclusion. I shall pick up the threads of what I was saying before I took those interventions, when I was addressing myself to amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. The Government should display some common sense and accept our new clause. Failing that, they should support amendment No. 86, which proposes to omit clause 11 and maintain the status quo, or support amendment No. 44, tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Down, which proposes to leave out subsection (4).

I thank the House for its indulgence this afternoon. I dare say that this is the longest speech that I have ever made in the House of Commons—if it deserves the status of "speech", that is; it was probably more of a stream of consciousness. It is with that same consciousness and good attention that I shall listen with interest in due course to the Minister's reply.

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

It was very apt of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) to talk about a stream of consciousness. Given the stream of amendments and new clauses that we have grouped together here, there will be a certain stream of consciousness in everyone's contribution. I sought advice from the Chair—prior to your taking the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I wish to support, within this gaggle of amendments and new clauses, those tabled by the Government. I do so for various reasons, to which I shall turn very quickly.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a point about what was said by the Irish Government, the Catholic Church and others. I think that she got her years wrong. Those observations actually stated that the Weston Park changes had the essence and the spirit of Patten. They were made post-Weston Park—not in relation to the 2000 Act—and very much in regard to the changes made at Weston Park in relation to the 2000 Act.

I want to divide my comments into the three areas in which I am especially interested. They are the parts of the Bill relating to reports and inquiries, to the Policing Board seeking information and documents, and to the right—indeed, the duty—of the ombudsman to seek information in relation to the pursuance of her duty. I hope that I shall confine myself to those three areas. It is essential that we recognise that there are two different elements of the Bill: reports and inquiries on one hand, and the board's seeking information on the other. It is on that matter that some of the confusion arises, certainly so far as I have been concerned. The changes relating to reports and inquiries are now being clarified fairly quickly in the Bill.

The important features of the special committee are crucial, and it is worth looking at them again. The first is that it must be representative of the board. I note that previous speakers said that there was a danger in that, but there is always a danger in everything when it comes to getting things done. I said in the Standing Committee, and I say again today, that nothing could be more damaging internally for any board than for a small group of people within it to be privy to special and sensitive information to the exclusion of others. That would create a running, festering sore within the board.

Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) addressed this issue in Committee, he said that one of the problems with the old Police Authority was that it was run by an inner sanctum that had access to information that was not shared by other members of the authority. So, the wider the committee is and the greater the number of members it has, the more effective it will be. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the number from five to seven; I sought that increase for many a long month, and again in Committee.

The crucial difference in this Bill in relation to reports and inquiries is that information would not be withheld on the ground that it would put the life of an individual in danger. That actually applies now to the board's seeking information and documents, the substantive difference being that the Chief Constable will probably be able to deal with the confidentiality of the special committee in a much more effective way than any of the other proposed provisions would enable him to do. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that the purpose of the special committee and of this approach is to ensure that the Chief Constable can increase the provision of information to the Policing Board. I welcome that, because if the board is to deal with the many difficult matters that it will have to deal with, it must have people's trust in respect of such information. 2 pm

I am not sure that it was necessary to rename the committee the "special purposes committee", but I can live with that change. The Chief Constable will be obliged to seek the agreement of the special committee to any summary of the sensitive information going to the board. That is crucial, because we cannot have two levels of people on the Policing Board: those who get information and those who do not. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) wish to intervene?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

indicated dissent.

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

It will be very difficult to run a Policing Board properly if there are those who get information and those who do not. In order to avoid that problem, the summary that the Chief Constable will send to the board should be agreed by the special committee. Doing so would also relieve the board of any obligation to establish the special purposes committee before the Chief Constable indicates that he wishes to do so. That is crucial, because it will not be a special purposes committee in waiting, as it were; as I understand it, it will be set up when there is a need for it. It will not be a special caucus of the Policing Board that is waiting for a function.

I welcome these provisions, but I sound one note of caution. I am always wary of special committees, whether they are called "special purposes committees" or some other type of special committee. However, I recognise the difficulties, and this is one way of dealing with the problem of giving sensitive information. Although it may not be ideal, it is operative and fair, and it will protect the Chief Constable and his giving of sensitive information, and protect members of the board in terms of their dealing with it.

Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with information sought by the board, and I welcome the fact that they include not only the word "information" but the word "documents". Indeed, I tabled such an amendment in Committee on this crucial issue. Without documents, information does not exist. As the Americans might say, "If it ain't on paper, it doesn't exist". Incidents such as the taking—or seizing, depending on what one wants to call it—of documents and information in recent times in the north of Ireland would have had no substance whatever had those documents not been there, so it is right that this change be made.

It is interesting to note that the reason for the change came from the board itself. It asked for the change because during its short life, its request for sight of a Police Service report on the handling of the Omagh bombing had been refused. Ultimately, it did receive the report. It then became clear that if it were properly to fulfil its functions, it would not be enough simply for it to be given information, regardless of how that information was given; it is entitled to documentation, and it is on the basis of such documentation that it must make important decisions on crucial issues.

I turn to the third and final issue on which I wish to comment. I am pleased to note the change to the ombudsman's accessing of information. The relevant provision ensures that any sensitive information arising in the context of a report and inquiry can be given to the police ombudsman in the context of any of his functions. It used to be possible for the ombudsman to receive such information only in the context of his investigations into police policies and practices, as opposed to his other functions, including investigating criminal and disciplinary matters. That put the ombudsman in a totally invidious position, and left him in a huge vacuum in terms of his responsibility to investigate and to deal with the problems that any ombudsman must deal with. I welcome the inclusion of the word "any", which fills that vacuum and removes a great difficulty for the ombudsman.

I will vote with the Government on the new clause and the related amendments. I have discussed such provisions and aspects of the Bill for a very long time and, happily, these changes enable me to say with some confidence that we are getting it right this time. In getting it right, we can be much more hopeful that in future, we can make the entire policing process work. For those reasons, I shall vote with the Government.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I shall confine my remarks on this abundance of amendments to a few specific areas that, I understand, are likely to cause the House to divide, rather than trying to emulate the tour de force of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).

I turn first to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and her colleagues, of which I am broadly supportive. The restoration of the fourth ground for the non-disclosure of information is in my view important. In moving the amendment, the hon. Lady referred to the Patten report and to paragraph 6.22 in particular. It is worth emphasising the terms of that paragraph, which states:

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

In my view, the important phrase is "such as". It is clear that the detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders is very much of the same nature as the first three grounds.

That takes me back to a point that I made yesterday about how we should approach the Bill. We must consider the signals that we send out. The House must ask itself what signal it will send out to the community in Northern Ireland if we say that we want to remove this ground—to do with the detection of crime or apprehension of offenders—from the Bill. Removing that ground would be a retrograde step. The hon. Member for North Down said that the list in Patten was descriptive and not exhaustive. She was absolutely right.

The hon. Lady referred to the constitution of the special committees and reminded the House that the committees did not have their genesis in the Patten report. Yesterday, we spoke about sub-groups for district policing partnerships; today, we are talking about special committees. I am reminded of John Kenneth Galbraith's observation that the good Lord so loved the world that He sent His only son, and not a committee. Much of the Government's approach is bureaucratic and a little top-heavy. The special committees seem to be yet another layer of bureaucracy. I see no particular reason for them and I hope that the Government will reconsider their position.

The other matters on which I understand that the House may divide are Conservative amendment No. 86 and new clause 21. I made my position clear on this matter on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh reminded the House that, although it is possible for the decision to be made by a minority of the total committee, it still requires a majority of those who are present and voting. We should not lose sight of that important point. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will support the Government should the House divide on this point.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will confine my remarks to new clause 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and other colleagues. The holding of inquiries in Northern Ireland is a controversial issue that should concentrate the minds of hon. Members. The Northern Ireland Policing Board has been praised—rightly—for its constructive work thus far. Some would argue that it has been able to work so constructively only because of the absence of those who would pollute its deliberations and undermine its activities—the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein.

The Policing Board has worked well on a number of issues. Much mention has been made of the implementation of the Patten report. The board—not only by a majority but unanimously—agreed in the early months of its life the establishment of the badge and logos. On those issues, the board went beyond Patten, yet the fervent advocates of Patten seem conveniently to forget that. None the less, the holding of inquiries by the board ought to be an issue that commands a significant amount of attention.

In Northern Ireland, there is a preponderance of demands for inquiries. At times, the demand for inquiries can seem insatiable. A current inquiry, albeit not one that is under the auspices of the Chief Constable, is taking place just several hundred metres from the House. It will cost more than £150 million of public money, and it is being held because of the demand for inquiries in Northern Ireland.

I have a significant amount of sympathy with the Government in that there must be a degree of reasonableness when considering inquiries. On the one hand, one cannot set the bar so high, or make it so difficult to hold an inquiry, that the community sees little point in asking for one; but, on the other hand, one cannot set the bar so low as to ensure that inquiries are demanded weekly. I was at a public meeting in my constituency earlier this week with the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, Bryce Dickson. His view was that, if the Chief Constable is not able, under current legislation, to conduct certain investigations despite the demand for them, he could be in breach of the European convention on human rights. If that is the case—and I understand that discussions are to take place between the Chief Constable and the Human Rights Commission—an outcome will have to be sought. Depending on that outcome, people may be encouraged to make demands with the result that the Chief Constable will be severely constrained because of resources and might be in grave difficulty with the European Court. There will have to be reasonableness in establishing how inquiries might be conducted by the board.

Hon. Members have suggested that a reduction from 10 to eight in the number of members required to support a proposition is reasonable because of the requirement that there be a majority among members who are in attendance and voting. I suggest that the importance of inquiries, and the preponderance of demands for them, mean that the requirement for there to be 10 members should be retained. If inquiries are demanded and if new evidence is submitted—and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and I have made demands for inquiries in cases where there is new evidence—there ought to be a sufficient number of members who are in attendance and voting at the Policing Board to ensure that at least 10 are in favour of the proposition. To lower the bar to eight would, I believe, open the door to an endless demand that would have, as its raison d'être, martyrdom, the blame culture in Northern Ireland, and the need to dig up the past again and again and again.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

My hon. Friend is talking about drawing a line under the past. Is he encouraged by the fact that, recently in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made exactly that point—that the time had come to draw a line under the past? Does that add weight to my hon. Friend's argument on inquiries?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I have heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) say that again and again and again. I hope that his colleagues and others will pay attention to it, so that we can move forward. We should be dealing with the issues of the present and the future, rather than constantly rehearsing the blame culture of the past.

If Her Majesty's Government are going to have a rationale in the Bill that means that demands for inquiries and redress are constantly perceived to be coming from a particular section of the community, and if a response has to be made to those demands from that particular section of the community, obviously there will be resistance in the other community that feels that its demands are not being listened to and that it is not receiving a response. They will always get it wrong if they seek to redress an imbalance that is presented from one section of the community and one only. If demands for an inquiry are heeded when they come from one section of the community but not when they come from the other, there will be resentment within the other section of the community. For that reason, I would support new clause 21.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Hon. Members are already aware of the changes that have been made to the Bill. However, before I go into details I want to express my gratitude for the support of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Their encouragement is very welcome.

The second ground of referral has been changed to information of a "sensitive personnel" nature. That relates to sensitive information related to the individual's holding of office or to their employment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I shall make it clear who would be covered. As hon. Members are aware, the following categories are already defined elsewhere in the legislation: police officers including reservists, police support staff, police trainees and police reserve trainees, traffic wardens and police cadets, and now secondees and designated contractors' staff under the Bill.

The fourth ground of referral, which has generated the most discussion this afternoon, has been dropped under the Bill. It dealt with information likely to prejudice the detection of crime or prosecution of offenders. I will use the phrase that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—whom I hesitate to call my hon. Friend but who is indeed a friend—suggested I should not use: by dropping that fourth ground of referral we are more fully implementing the Patten recommendations.

The issue of the fourth ground of referral has been debated at length in Committee and in the other place, but I remind hon. Members that the Policing Board's primary statutory duty is to maintain an effective police service in Northern Ireland. It would therefore be contrary to that duty for the board to request information or a report within a time scale that could prejudice a major or an ongoing investigation. Under section 59 of the 2000 Act there is already provision for the board and the Chief Constable to agree a time scale for the production of a report. I have every confidence that both organisations would seek to reach a sensible accommodation to avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that we had not presented any arguments in favour of that move. I shall attempt to explain the rationale for the change and invite the House to consider the issue from a different perspective. As hon. Members know, the grounds of referral, currently four in number, are a basis on which the Chief Constable, with the Secretary of State's agreement, could block a report or prevent an inquiry, and there is nothing on the face of the 2000 Act requiring the Secretary of State to give his reasons. There is a concern, particularly among constitutional nationalists, that these wide-ranging powers could be abused—if not by a Secretary of State, possibly by a devolved Minister of Justice—and the board thwarted in its proper role of holding the Chief Constable to account.

It was against that background that the Government considered where the balance should properly be struck. We believe that the grounds as they are now set out in the Bill, when taken with the other safeguards provided by the Bill and existing legislation, get the balance right between ensuring that the board has proper access to information and protecting sensitive information appropriately.

A large number of amendments seek to reinstate that fourth ground of referral. Unlike other hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon, I may not avoid commenting on them because I need to give the Government's response to some of them. Amendments Nos. 52 and 60, in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), would also reinstate the fourth ground of referral by removing clauses 18 and 23 respectively, in their entirety. For the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that to be necessary or appropriate, and I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments.

(Mr Davies) Amendment No. 70, in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, would apply when the Chief Constable and the board failed to agree a time scale for the production of a report under section 59. It provides that in that event Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary should determine the time scale. I have every confidence that the board and the Chief Constable would seek to reach a sensible accommodation on time scale. However, I would also draw attention to section 27 of the 2000 Act, under which the Secretary of State can issue—and, indeed, has issued—a code of practice on the board's conduct in respect of any of its functions.

On this function, as we have made clear in another place, we propose to provide, through a code of practice, that if the board and the Chief Constable cannot agree a time scale for the production of a report, which may impact on the police's ability to prevent or detect crime, the board can refer the matter to HMIC. The inspectorate is an independent organisation and has extensive operational policing experience, so it is well placed to advise the board. The board would then be able to take account of the recommendation in finally determining that deadline. The Government believe that it is appropriate that this procedure should be provided for in the code of practice, rather than here in primary legislation, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment, although I do feel that we are accepting the principle that the hon. Member for Solihull expounded.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I presume that the Minister has consulted HMIC about this proposal. What response was received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary? What was the Chief Constable's response to the dropping of the fourth ground and allowing information prejudicial to an investigation to be given to the full board or a special committee? What was his feeling on the issue?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I know that Her Majesty's inspectorate will be willing to co-operate with the arrangements that we are discussing. I consulted the Chief Constable before these matters were considered in Committee, and I had another opportunity to discuss them with him after Committee, having heard the concerns that were raised there. He is satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill and he believes that the concept of a special purposes committee would work and that he could work within that structure. He has assured me that he feels that he would still be able to protect information that he regarded as sensitive, and work within the openness that he seeks to establish with the board, in that he wishes to share as much information as possible, within the constraints. I shall come to that in a moment.

I shall now speak to new clause 21 and amendment No. 86 in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and amendment No. 44 in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. These amendments relate to clause 11. That reduces the threshold of members that is required to initiate an inquiry under section 60. We have heard some discussion about that already. New clause 21 and amendments Nos. 44 and 86 would undo the arrangements in clause 11.

Hon. Members will recall that the Government have already outlined at length why we believe that this change is appropriate and why, as I believe, the fears of the hon. Members concerned are unfounded. The provisions set out in clause 11 have been made in response to a genuine feeling among some members of the board that the existing arrangements set too high a threshold. The clause does not give any member of the board, or any group within it, licence to force through unpopular or unrepresentative decisions. However, it provides a prospect that a group that perceives itself as a minority on the board might at least have an opportunity to seek to initiate an inquiry if the circumstances warrant it.

Again, I stress that that will not enable a minority to force through an unpopular inquiry and that appropriate safeguards and guidelines have been set out in the 2000 Act to ensure that all board members are given adequate notice to attend any meeting to vote on an inquiry. The safeguards are set out in paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. The Government are content that the provisions in clause 11 are appropriate, and I will certainly resist those amendments if they are pressed to a Division.

In Committee, a number of hon. Members commented on the complexity of the inter-relationship between the provisions of new section 33A and existing section 59 of the 2000 Act. I have since reflected on the issues raised, and in the amendments that we have introduced today, we seek, among other things, to streamline those interlocking provisions.

We see new section 33A, which will be inserted by clause 18, as very much an everyday power of the board to request and receive information from the Chief Constable. It is not envisaged that sensitive information would be routinely supplied through that route, unless it was deemed appropriate by the Chief Constable. So the board is guaranteed access to any non-sensitive information it seeks through that route and, in certain circumstances, might also gain access to sensitive information, subject to the professional judgment of the Chief Constable.

The Chief Constable may withhold information in respect of a request made under new section 33A, under criteria set out in Government amendment No. 10. In light of that change, I no longer see the need for the small committee, provided for under clause 22, to have a role in relation to new section 33A or to restrict the board's access to documents. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh has said, we have widened that provision.

Government amendment No. 11, therefore, will remove the provisions that related to the committee, and amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 18 to 20, 22 and 26 are consequential upon it. Government amendment No. 9 will give the board access to documents, as I have just said, as well as information. It may be worth saying that, based on our legal advice that subsequent references to information in the clause would encompass documents, as well as other information, the Government also seek to amend clause 12, with Government amendment No. 8, to make the legislation consistent.

Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, would delete the references to the Chief Constable's discretion in new section 33A. We believe that those amendments are inappropriate and that the existing formulation is consistent with other statutes, so I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments either. We believe that it is right for the Chief Constable to be empowered to exercise such discretion since he is the best person to judge, within the parameters set by legislation, which information should or should not be shared.

I shall briefly touch on the issue of the special committee for handling sensitive information. I paid careful heed to the criticisms of the arrangements that we have proposed that hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, voiced in Committee. The amendments reflect some changes as a consequence of those debates. As I have said, we do not see the committee as having a role in relation to new section 33A.

Under Government amendment No. 31, the board should have discretion over whether or not to set up a committee to deal with sensitive information, where it would be essential to establish such a committee to safeguard information that the Chief Constable or the Secretary of State determined should be shared with a limited number of individuals. That will give the board freedom to decide whether to establish a committee from the outset. The board can also decide whether it is a standing or an ad hoc committee. That proposal is very much in response to the points made, in particular, by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

That amendment will also increase the committee's size to seven members, and I shall take a moment to explain that. It will allow the board greater flexibility in its selection processes. We would expect that it would normally wish to include both the chairman and the vice-chairman, but membership could also include representatives from the political parties on the board, as well as independent members. All other terms of the constitution of that committee remain as previously set out in the Bill.

By contrast, amendment No. 83, tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, would remove the requirement that that small committee should be, as far as practicable, representative of the board. In my view, removing such a requirement is not appropriate in the context of Northern Ireland. The Patten report was clear on the need for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, where the police service would be acceptable to and supported by the whole community.

The new beginning to policing is now well under way, very strongly underpinned by the cross-community nature of the Policing Board. In that context, I could not support an arrangement by which that small committee of the Policing Board did not reflect the spectrum of political opinion represented on the board. It is not for the Government to prescribe how the board should constitute the committee, but it is surely right that it should not be unrepresentative, which could be the effect of amendment No. 83. That might leave a majority of any hue able to skew the committee's composition.

In reflecting on the maturity of the board so far, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and its possible future composition, I believe that amendment No. 83 would be inadvisable and, therefore, ask that it not be pressed to a Division, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will make up his own mind on that.

Amendment No. 59, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, would also allow the board discretion about whether to establish a small committee for handling sensitive information. I have already outlined our proposals in relation that point. In particular, Government amendment No. 31 will allow the board the same discretion, while ensuring that the committee would be brought into being in particular circumstances. Amendment No. 59 is therefore unnecessary, and I will ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Government amendment No. 32 will give that small committee a specific title—the special purposes committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh for saying that he does not particularly quarrel with giving it a special name. The purpose of doing so was to clarify its special function and to make less cumbersome the references to it in the legislation. As a result of that change, we have tabled a number of consequential amendments.

Clause 9 deals with the reports of the Chief Constable. Government amendment No. 6 will oblige the Chief Constable to seek to obtain the agreement of the special purposes committee to the terms of a non-sensitive summary of the information that he has supplied to it. In doing that, the Chief Constable must make real and demonstrable efforts to reach agreement with the special purposes committee.

If and when agreement is reached, the summary will be provided to the board as part of the Chief Constable's report, under section 59 of the 2000 Act. I point out that that will put a greater onus on the Chief Constable in relation to the board than the previous formulation, which merely required him to take account of the committee's views. That is yet another step that we are taking in recognising the role of the board.

Hon. Members will recall that I explained in Committee that I supported, in principle, the amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, which would have provided that it should not be an offence for the board, or any special purposes committee of it, to share sensitive information with the ombudsman's staff, in connection with any of her functions. Government amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29 duly clarify that position, and I am grateful to him for his proposal in that regard.

The arrangements surrounding access to information, particularly sensitive information, are of necessity complex. Transparency and accountability are principles that have underpinned the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but that is balanced by the need for appropriate safeguards on sensitive information. The Chief Constable has to reflect that balance, too, in relation to his duty to protect life, under section 32(1) of the 2000 Act. In addition, as a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, he, too, is bound by the code of ethics, under section 52 of the 2000 Act, and by the terms of the attestation to uphold fundamental human rights.

There are already some safeguards in section 59 of the 2000 Act that allow the Chief Constable to refer certain requests to the Secretary of State. There are further safeguards in the amendments that we are introducing as part of the Bill that would allow him to limit the distribution of certain information within the Board.

The issue is not whether the Chief Constable provides a complete report or no report at all. He would be obliged to provide information to the board in such a way as to avoid any risk to an individual's life. For example, he could ensure that he avoided mentioning vulnerable individuals by name or identifying them. That would protect an individual's right to life while ensuring that the board had access to information. The requirements are delicately balanced, but the Government amendments strike the correct balance and help to streamline the complex nature of the arrangements.

I sense a growing interest in these matters in the House, so I commend the Government amendments to hon. Members.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I hope that the Minister also gets the impression that we are not persuaded at all. Although she probably does not need reminding of this, hon. Members might be interested to know that the Patten report always anticipated that the Policing Board would be a robust institution of central importance. It was never recommended that it should have specialist committees, little ad hoc committees or add-on extras.

I pay tribute to the Policing Board that we have at present. It has members from the Social Democratic and Labour party—I am glad that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in the Chamber—the Democratic Unionist party and, of course, the Ulster Unionist party. They have worked as a unanimous team to make the Policing Board, quite frankly, an unexpected success. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) referred to the unanimous agreement on the policing badge. The Patten report recommended that the policing badge should be neutral, but the Policing Board had the courage of its convictions and agreed to make the policing badge reflective of both communities' traditions. The Belfast agreement urged symbols to be used to show mutual respect, not neutrality. That meant that the recommendation in Patten was in breach of the agreement, so I was glad when the board reached a unanimous decision on the new badge.

Given that members of the Policing Board are working so well together, the introduction of specialist committees would be divisive and counter-productive. Therefore, with much regret, I must tell the Minister that we shall press amendment No. 61 to a Division. However, we shall not press amendment No. 60, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 16, line 9, at end insert—

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

Clause 22 — Special Committee of the Board

Clause 18 — Provision of Information to Board

Clause 9 — Reports of Chief Constable

Clause 21 — Restriction on Disclosure of Information

Clause 11 — Approval of Proposals Relating to Inquiries by Board

Clause 12 — Investigations into Current Police Practices and Policies

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 8, [Clause 12], leave out 'he has' and insert

'the Board and the Secretary of State have'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 8, [Clause 12], leave out from 'he' to end of line 9 and insert

'is of the view that the policy or practice should be considered given that a member of the police service acting in accordance with that policy or practice has committed a criminal offence, or is responsible for conduct that gave rise to disciplinary proceedings.'.

Amendment No. 47, in page 9, line 14, [Clause 12], at end insert—

'(2A) No investigation under this section shall extend to events or incidences that occurred before the coming into force of this section.'.

New clause 7—Exceptions to limits on complaints and references to Ombudsman—

'In section 64 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (regulations) after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted—

"(2B) The Secretary of State may only prescribe exceptions pursuant to subsection (2A) above if the circumstances are both grave and exceptional.".'.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am entirely encouraged by the closeness of the vote on the Ulster Unionist amendment, so much so that we shall keep going with our arguments to ensure that the Bill leaves the House in a different state from that in which it arrived. I appreciate the support that we received for our earlier amendment.

The amendments and the new clause deal with an important issue: the investigations that can be conducted by the ombudsman. I have always been supportive of the creation and setting up of the office of an independent police ombudsman. That comes from personal experience. Indeed, I declare an interest in that while my husband was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—as it was properly called—there were several controversial investigations, especially the Stalker and Sampson inquiries. Although both inquiries found that there was no shoot-to-kill policy, suspicion and disbelief continued in a certain quarter of the community in Northern Ireland. Having come through that experience, I welcomed the report of Dr. Maurice Hayes in 1997, which recommended the creation of the office of police ombudsman. The office was set up by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

However, there is concern about the growing number of inquiries, which relates to a point that was sincerely made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). There is a perception that we have a one-sided truth commission, in various guises, in Northern Ireland. We must ensure that the office of the police ombudsman is held in high esteem and has the confidence of all sections and people in Northern Ireland.

Hon. Members know that the police ombudsman has a substantial budget. On Monday, the Irish News reported:

"The Police Ombudsman's Office investigates an average of 3,500 complaints against the police every year and has been allocated a budget of £7.4 million for the coming financial year."

That is a substantial remit and a substantial budget.

The effect of amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 can be summed up neatly. Clause 12 states:

"The Ombudsman may investigate a current practice or policy of the police if . . . the practice or policy comes to his attention under this Part, and . . . he has reason to believe that it would be in the public interest to investigate the practice or policy."

That is far too subjective. It leaves deciding what is in the public interest to the police ombudsman. The commander of a district command unit in North Down could decide that he should target drugs smuggling and abuse in North Down as a policing priority and allocate resources to that. Why should the ombudsman exercise his discretion and decide that it might be in the public interest to examine that? The remit is too wide and too subjective.

Our amendment would provide for the Policing Board and the Secretary of State to determine whether there should be an investigation of current practice or policy. Amendment No. 46 would provide for an investigation by the ombudsman if the board and the Secretary of State are

"of the view that the policy or practice should be considered given that a member of the police service acting in accordance with that policy or practice has committed a criminal offence, or is responsible for conduct that gave rise to disciplinary proceedings."

That is a modest change to clause 12. However, it makes it obvious that the practice or policy stems from police impropriety or improper behaviour. That is better than allowing the ombudsman to determine what is "in the public interest"—a broad, sweeping term—without any checks or balances.

New clause 7 is important. The Irish News included an article that stated that the Minister had met the police ombudsman. It was entitled "Funds to investigate killings are refused". The ombudsman had made a request to investigate three incidents. One happened 12 years ago, another six years ago and the third was not given a date but took place in the past. The Minister did not approve funding for those inquiries. The families who have lost loved ones are entitled to closure and will feel a sense of grievance. However, it appears to have gone unnoticed that when the police ombudsman's office was set up under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, regulations—the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001—were also published. That shows that the name has changed for only operational, not legal purposes. [Interruption.] That is quite right. [Interruption.] Perhaps DUP Members would like to intervene rather than snipe from the sidelines.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

If the hon. Lady believes that the name has been changed only for operational purposes, perhaps she could elaborate on the rationale behind new clause 15, which the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) tabled.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening rather than commenting from a sedentary position. The question is properly directed at my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). I am sure that he will be delighted to answer it.

In the meantime, perhaps hon. Members would care to examine section 1 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It states clearly, in black and white—it is therefore not an invention of the Ulster Unionist party—that the title was changed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for operational purposes. The legal title remains the "Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)". If the hon. Member for East Londonderry wants or needs any proof of that, he should refer to the High Court case in July last year of Mark Parsons v. Chief Constable PSNI (RUC). That is the proper title. However, now that I have adequately dealt with all DUP Members' queries, let us move swiftly along.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Does PSNI (RUC) appear on police headed paper?

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

Order. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is being led astray. It is not her doing. We will consider the matters raised later in our proceedings.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be guided by your advice.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

No answer.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I hope that hon. Members will abide by the Deputy Speaker's ruling.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is no answer.

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

Order. We have had enough comments from a sedentary position. Today is not the time to deal with the matter.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001 set out the powers whereby the police ombudsman can conduct an investigation. It includes a general rule that

"actions, behaviour or conduct to which the matter relates took place not more than 12 months before the date on which the reference was made".

The police ombudsman is not therefore allowed to trawl back through cases from many years ago.

However, regulation 9 provides for an exception. It states that the general rule does

"not apply where the matter is not the same or substantially the same as a previous complaint or matter and the Ombudsman believes that a member may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings, and the Ombudsman believes that the matter should be investigated because of the gravity of the matter or the exceptional circumstances."

Again, matters are left to the ombudsman's discretion. We do not believe that that is right. Our modest amendment in new clause 7 would ensure that the Secretary of State would determine whether the circumstances were grave and exceptional.

The amendments are intended to encourage confidence in the police ombudsman's office. They are not intended to encroach on its independence. That would be most regrettable. The police ombudsman's independence is of the utmost importance to everyone in Northern Ireland.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

New clause 7 states:

"The Secretary of State may only prescribe exceptions pursuant to subsection (2A) above if the circumstances are both grave and exceptional."

To a certain extent, I agree that we should not be trailing through misdemeanours that happened decades ago, as there is probably not much benefit in so doing. There are no winners in that, and it could stir things up. On the other hand, there remains a lot of anxiety in Northern Ireland about injustices that occurred at the beginning of the troubles, even though that is more than three decades ago. When the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) returns to her feet, will she give an example of what would constitute "grave and exceptional circumstances"?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall begin by responding to the specific amendments in this group. Amendment No. 45 would prevent the ombudsman from investigating a current practice or policy unless the board and the Secretary of State believed that it would be in the public interest to do so.

Patten was clear that the ombudsman should have the right to exercise her investigative powers. I believe that that implies that she should be able to do so independently of the board and the Secretary of State. The ombudsman is capable of making the judgment of whether there is a public interest justification for an investigation, without having to rely on the board or the Secretary of State. Patten clearly recommended that the ombudsman should have operational independence in these matters.

I recognise that such investigations bring the ombudsman into territory that would otherwise fall exclusively to the board. However, the ombudsman role focuses on issues relating to police conduct; the Board's role goes much wider than that. Nevertheless, it will be important for both organisations to take steps to minimise duplication. I do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this through primary legislation, but I hope that both organisations will draw up a protocol or memorandum of understanding to deal with the matter, and I encourage them to do so. Therefore for the reasons that I have discussed, I am afraid that I cannot accept amendment No. 45.

Similarly, amendment No. 46 would restrict the ombudsman to investigating only when a police officer has committed a criminal offence or is responsible for conduct that has given rise to disciplinary proceedings. The Bill as it stands provides for an investigation where the ombudsman has reason to believe such an investigation would be in the public interest.

I understand the concern that has prompted the tabling of this amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). There is a difference between something that is in the public interest in the sense that it is for the genuine good of the public at large, and something that is of interest to the public—for example, something that satisfies public curiosity. That is why the wording of the clause was amended in another place: the phrase "of significant public concern" was changed to "in the public interest". The present wording of the Bill therefore prevents artificial public concern from being whipped up by interest groups in order to provoke an investigation.

Amendment No. 46 goes too far in limiting the ombudsman's powers to investigate, however. It is clearly inconsistent with the recommendations of Patten. It would unnecessarily and unhelpfully limit the powers of the ombudsman.

Amendment No. 46 would mean that the ombudsman would not be able to deal with a situation where she was concerned that, if a policy were to be applied, it might result in an offence being committed. The amendment clearly would hamper her powers both to prevent offences and restore public confidence in the PSNI. It is contrary to Patten, and I therefore cannot accept it.

With regard to amendment No. 47, the Government's intention is that the power to investigate police policies and practices should not be retrospective. Our amendment introduced in another place made it clear that the ombudsman's power was restricted to current policies and practices.

In investigating current policies and practices, it would, of course, be natural for the ombudsman to inform herself of the way in which officers have conducted themselves in applying these policies and practices. If we were to agree to amendment No. 47, however, she would not be able to look at officers' conduct, in applying current practices and policies, which had, for example, occurred only the week before Royal Assent.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Given that financial powers have been devolved to district commanders, it is possible, for example, that the North Down district commander could exercise his discretion and give priority to dealing with drug abuse. What is there to prevent the ombudsman from saying that she would like to inquire into that current practice, in the public interest? What grounds for judicial review of her decision would the wording of clause 12 offer, if she said that such an investigation was in the public interest?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

If the ombudsman felt it appropriate to launch an investigation such as the one that the hon. lady has described, I am not sure that it would be a particular problem. I am puzzled as to why the decision of a district commander to introduce a policy to deal with a specific issue—such as drug abuse in a particular area—would cause the ombudsman such anxiety that she would consider it in the public interest to investigate. However, I cannot prescribe the circumstances in which the ombudsman may investigate: she needs to have the freedom to examine policies and practices, especially if it has been suggested to her that their application is not in the public interest. Who knows what may grow out of the relationships between DPPs and the local district commanders?

I cannot see the circumstances in which the example given by the hon. Member for North Down would arise. I do not believe that it would be the problem that she suggests. It is important that we be pragmatic, and I confess that I am struggling to follow the logic of the example that the hon. Lady has given.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again, but the difficulty is that the wording of the clause is so subjective. Anyone who wishes to complain and take judicial review proceedings will find it very difficult to succeed in those proceedings because of the width and subjective nature of clause 12.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We are talking about "the public interest", a phrase that is widely used in legislation. It is pretty well understood, and I do not believe that there will be the degree of difficulty that the hon. Lady has described. I feel that, on this occasion, her fears are ill founded.

The hon. Lady gave the example of a drugs policy being implemented in a particular district command. It is likely that such a policy would be agreed under the local policing plan and subject to scrutiny by the local DPP. That would be in line with targets set by the board. A district commander is highly unlikely to follow a policy that would be so far out of kilter with what was happening elsewhere in the PSNI that it would cause so much concern.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but this is a very important point. Yesterday in this House we discussed thoroughly the powers of district policing partnerships. DPPs, in North Down and elsewhere—although, after yesterday, I cannot speak for Belfast—do not have executive decision powers; they have only advisory and consultative powers. They will not bind the district commander, so the district commander could make a decision to direct resources in North Down to a particular policy without an executive agreement from the DPP.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill that would limit the operational independence of district commanders, but they always work under the direction of the Chief Constable, who always works within the remit of the policing plan developed by the Policing Board and, indeed, of the policies established by the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady's example gives rise to undue concern. We want the ombudsman to focus on the present, not on the past. We do not want to tie her hands in such a way as to make it impossible for her to operate. That would be the effect of the amendment, so I cannot accept it.

I turn to new clause 7, which deals not with the new power to investigate policies and practices, but with the ombudsman's core role of investigating complaints. Under section 64(2A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a time limit within which a complaint must be made or a matter referred if it is to be investigated by her office. The regulations may prescribe exceptions to the time limit; we discussed that at some length in Standing Committee. The regulations that have been made under that provision set a time limit of 12 months and provide for certain exceptions. In particular, the ombudsman must believe that a member may have committed a criminal offence or have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings, and in most cases there is also a condition that the matter must have grave or exceptional circumstances.

The effect of the new clause would be that regulations could provide only for exceptions to the time limit where the circumstances were both grave and exceptional. Although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, if it is intended to facilitate society in looking forward—a point that has been made in another context by the Chief Constable in the very recent past—paragraph 5(19) of the Patten report states:

"we are in no doubt that the RUC"—

as it was then—

"has had several officers within its ranks over the years who have abused their position . . . It is not satisfactory to suggest, as some people have, that one should somehow accept that every organisation has such 'bad apples'. They should be dealt with."

I agree with that. However, there is a balance to be struck. It is not the role of the ombudsman to conduct a series of witch hunts, nor does the present post-holder have any such intention. But our judgment is that the current wording of the regulations made under section 64 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 65 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, reflects the appropriate balance. As part of the confidence-building process in policing, it would not be right to dilute the powers currently vested in the ombudsman by placing a further restriction or an additional condition on the use of those powers.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of resources that the hon. Lady raised. Although I turned down the request for further resources that the ombudsman's offices made, I did not say that she may not conduct any of the inquiries that she suggested that she would like to carry out. Her office has received an increase in funding of more than 40 per cent. and has received all the funding that it bid for in the Budget round this year. The ombudsman's office is therefore very well resourced. It is for her office to determine how those resources are managed, and I made that point when I discussed the matter with her last week.

I hope that I have been able to allay some of the hon. Lady's concerns; given the exchanges that we have had, I guess that I may not have allayed them all. However, I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment if it is pressed.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I appreciate the lengths to which the Minister has gone to try to allay my fears, but she can tell from the look on my face and from my interventions that I have not had my fears allayed at all. The Minister quoted a section of the Patten report about particular RUC officers. It is better to remember that the subtitle of the Patten report is "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland". I am fed up, to put it mildly, with sections of the Patten report being quoted by the Government when it suits them, and other parts not being quoted. If it is to be a new beginning to policing, it is grossly unfair that the ombudsman has a subjective power or ability to decide what is grave and what is exceptional. New clause 7 would make the process more objective; it would not undermine the independence of the ombudsman at all.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) asked me to give an example of grave and exceptional circumstances. What come to mind are the serious allegations, which were not upheld, about police officers' handling of warnings in relation to the Omagh inquiry. Had that been 16, 12 or however many years ago, clearly, that is a grave and exceptional circumstance.

If we truly mean that there should be a new beginning, we do not want to give rise to the perception that there is a one-sided truth commission. I will press the amendments to the vote, as the Bill must be improved. I return to what the Minister said in the debate in this place on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill on Monday last week, in relation to the catastrophic breakdown of confidence in the community. We must focus on rebuilding confidence in the police ombudsman's office, in the Policing Board and in all policing structures.

New Clause 4 — Appointment of Constables with Special Policing Skills

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a), in line 43, leave out 'each member' and insert—

'a majority of the members'.

New clause 8—Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland—

'In the event that—

(a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

(b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration

the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an Order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for a period of six months.'.

New clause 12—Encouragement of a representative police service—

'(1) Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 44 (recruitment arrangements: trainees and support staff), subsections (5) to (7) shall be omitted.

(3) For section 46, there shall be substituted—

"46 A representative police force

It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable to take all steps he considers appropriate to secure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in its composition, represents the population of Northern Ireland."

(4) For section 47(1) (meaning of "temporary provisions"), there shall be substituted—

"(1) In this section "the temporary provisions" means the provisions of section 45.".'.

New clause 20—Period of retention in a pool of qualified applicants—

'In section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (discrimination in appointments) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) Where a person from the pool of qualified applicants is not appointed under section 39 (appointment of police trainees) because—

(a) there are insufficient numbers of qualified applicants from persons who are treated as Roman Catholics; or

(b) there are insufficient numbers of qualified applicants from persons who are not so treated

they shall, subject to their consent, remain within the qualified pool of applicants for a period not exceeding eighteen months".'.

Amendment No. 88, in clause 19, page 12, line 33, after 'person', insert—

'who is a member of the Garda Siochana in the Irish Republic'.

Amendment No. 89, in page 12, line 36, at end insert—

'(2A) In making such appointments the Chief Constable shall appoint an even number of persons of whom—

(a) one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic;

(b) one half shall be persons who are not so treated.'.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

This is not the first time I have had to deal with a new clause four. On this occasion, however, I shall treat the new clause as though it had been moved formally, in order to allow others who have tabled amendments to speak to those amendments.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

We are all grateful to the Minister for giving us a little more time for debate.

The new clauses and amendments deal with the important practical issue of the level of policing in Northern Ireland and the numbers and resources available to the police. As we all know, the Patten report proposed that, in conditions of peaceful normal life—very far from what we have at the moment—the strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be 7,500. The last figures that I saw—the Minister of State will have the latest figures, I am sure—showed that the regular service was down to 6,900, below levels that Patten saw as indispensable in conditions of normality, and at the moment the demands on the police are exceptional.

There is, thank heaven, the full-time reserve. Under pressure from us, the Government agreed to renew its contracts last September. The latest figure for the reserve that I have seen is about 1,900. Even so, at present in Northern Ireland the police are overstretched. There is no doubt about that. Their prime tasks must be the priorities, which are, first, to maintain order and therefore to deal with the rioting and difficulties that we have seen all too frequently in the past year, including in recent months, particularly in Belfast; and, secondly, to deal with organised crime and paramilitarism. We all strongly congratulate the Chief Constable on the arrests that he has been able to make among serious paramilitary organisations, particularly in west and north Belfast over the past few months.

Given the need to prioritise those two objectives, it has not been possible for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to anything like the extent that is desired—including, I think, by every hon. Member—to engage in what Patten calls community policing but what I prefer to call neighbourhood policing, which is an essential part of getting the Province back to normality. Neighbourhood policing means to my mind the bobby on the beat and policemen and policewomen moving around their communities and addressing the challenge of law and order in an anticipatory way, rather than simply responding to calls and crises.Against that background, for reasons that, I think, are understood in the House but are a matter of great controversy here, the Conservative Opposition have accepted the need for the short temporary period to contribute to the essential task of creating a police service in Northern Ireland that genuinely is felt to be owned by both communities in Northern Ireland equally, to represent both communities equally and to be outside politics, in no sense sectarianised or politicised.

The sad history goes back many decades; I suppose it goes back to the old Royal Irish Constabulary before 1922. The difficulty is getting away from that legacy, the misunderstandings and caricatures of the past that are deeply imprinted, sadly, on many people's minds. It was necessary to take dramatic action. It is not reasonable anyway to have a situation where 90 per cent. of a police force comes from one half of the community, so we have accepted, but very reluctantly and conscious of the fact that in doing so we are overriding some fundamental principles of human rights, that there should be a quota system for recruitment to the police service over a temporary period. That is provided for in section 46, if I recall correctly, of the Mandelson Act—the 2000 Act—which provides that there should be 50 per cent. recruitment of people deemed to be Protestants and 50 per cent. recruitment of those deemed to be Catholic.

The new recruitments started at the beginning of last year. Although the first recruitment drive was rather encouraging and we had quite a lot of Catholic applicants, there have not been many Catholic applicants in subsequent recruitment exercises. Therefore, we find a considerable crisis in the numbers in the PSNI.

There are some people who react. The Unionist Members here, both Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist, will I am sure, take that line. They respond to this situation, understandably, by saying that we have to go back on the 50-50 arrangements in section 46, but I do not think, for the reasons that I have just mentioned, that that is a sensible solution, so we must find some other way forward.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

For accuracy, it is not 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. Protestant, but 50 per cent. Roman Catholic, 50 per cent. "other", which includes all others.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I am familiar with the clause and the hon. Lady is right, but I am using shorthand, as is conventional on these occasions. I had to explain to a colleague that part of the absurdity of the situation is that, in Northern Ireland, an atheist or a Jew is regarded as an honorary Protestant for the purposes of section 46.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stick to that shorthand, which is offensive to a lot of people who are neither Catholic nor Protestant. As the hon. Lady said, it means 50 per cent. Catholic and 50 per cent. not Catholic, and quite explicitly lumps all other groups together, but does not assume that they are all Protestant.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I have just made that point, and the hon. Gentleman and I agree. He is trying to censor my use of language. He is good at intervening on Members of the official Opposition or Ministers, who find themselves subject to his well-intentioned censorship. We are told at times that we cannot use certain words; the Minister of State got into trouble with him for using the word "community". I understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Since the scheme came into being, there have been 250 non-Catholic applicants and 26 Roman Catholic applicants, so plainly it is not working. Is my hon. Friend aware of any support that the Government are giving to the Chief Constable to overcome this, as the situation is going to get worse?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

My hon. Friend is right, and the situation is serious. Understandably, and rightly, when the new Police Service of Northern Ireland came into being, generous redundancy arrangements were offered to those with a full service record in the RUC who wished to take advantage of them. Inevitably, a large number did; more or less all those with 30 years of service have done so. Financially, it would have been irrational not to do so. We have faced an exceptional haemorrhage of officers, particularly experienced officers. That is another problem.

To answer my hon. Friend, the Government are trying to do something with new clause 4. The question is whether that is sufficient to solve the problems that he set out. The Ulster Unionist party has proposed new clause 8, which is an alternative way of solving the problem.

New clause 4, at first sight, is entirely unexceptional and welcome. It provides that while the PSNI remains under-strength because of insufficient Catholic recruitment, although theoretically it could be because of insufficient recruitment of Protestants and others, given the provisions of section 46, the Chief Constable should have the right, with the consent of the board, to recruit constables for a two-year period outside the quota system in section 46 of the 2000 Act. The phrasing is something like "the board at the request of the Chief Constable". That would last for two years, and could be renewed for up to a maximum of four years. The unanimous approval of the board would be needed for the Secretary of State to make such a proposal, which would have to be brought before a statutory instrument Committee. That is satisfactory, in that it provides a way of relieving the pressure, and it appears to address the problem. It is also temporary, which we feel very strongly is right. We do not want the 50:50 system to be permanent—it must be temporary—but we do not want it to be set aside definitively, because that would unravel an important part of the peace process.

Many aspects of the clause strike me as entirely favourable and well thought-through, and it is not our intention to oppose it in principle. However, three problems arise from our reading of it, and I ask for the Government's responses to them before we take a definitive decision on this—or, indeed, before we take a decision whether to support new clause 4 or the rival solution, new clause 8, which certainly does not contain the three problems that I am about to mention.

The first problem arises from new section 47A(1)(b) and (3)(b) in new clause 4. The effect of those provisions is to relax the requirement in section 36(3)(a) and (b) of the Mandelson Act that constables should have undergone training. The Act states:

"A person shall not be appointed to the rank of constable unless he has—

(a) completed such a period of service as a trainee (a "police trainee") as may be prescribed by regulations under section 41(3); and

(b) complied with such other conditions relating to training as may be so prescribed."

It seems dubious to provide for a power—albeit against the background of the pressures and the rationale that I have described—that allows for recruits to come into the Police Service of Northern Ireland who have not met the training provisions. I want to know why the Government are proposing that. Perhaps I am misreading the new clause, in which case we need an explanation and all will be well. But if I am not misreading the effect of the provision in this respect, why do the Government think that it is judicious—or, indeed, acceptable—to provide for the recruitment of people who have not gone through the appropriate training preliminaries?

I can see several reasons why that would be undesirable. The pressures on police constables in Northern Ireland are greater than on those in England, the Republic of Ireland and other normally stable societies. We do not want to recruit people whom we might regard as not quite up to the grade required elsewhere. To dilute standards in that way seems contrary to our objective—which I think we share with the Minister—of doing everything possible to promote the morale and sense of high standards in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.

It would be particularly undesirable if constables were recruited into the mainstream regular police service without having had the same training as constables in the full-time reserve. Those constables often feel that they are unfairly discriminated against, vis-à-vis regular officers. They have had the same training and perform the same tasks. These days—this might not always have been true—they have very much the same responsibilities. It would therefore be invidious to introduce such a provision, and I would like the Minister to explain the rationale behind this relaxation of the training provisions in the 2000 Act in respect of constables recruited under the new procedure as foreseen in new clause 4.

I must say openly that I am not addicted to conspiracy theories, even when dealing with this Government, with whom we have had differences on their tactics in Northern Ireland. However, when reading the new clause, it occurred to me that it could give rise to certain, no doubt entirely unfounded, suspicions. So as to ensure that they are not only unfounded but, we hope, will not arise at all, I would be grateful for an explicit comment from the Minister on this matter. There could be suspicions that the purpose of this formulation—of allowing the board to approve the recruitment of constables outside the clause 46 framework, and without the training that would otherwise be required—is to allow a massive infusion of republicans to dilute the Police Service overnight. We know that an unacceptable part of republican demands during the peace process—the Government seem to agree that it was unacceptable—has been that the Police Service of Northern Ireland should somehow absorb former paramilitaries. We want to make absolutely certain, however, that in the highly charged climate of Northern Ireland, no suspicion can arise that this provision could turn into such a Trojan horse. [Interruption.] I should like to tell the Minister, if I may have her attention for a moment, that that is the second matter on which I would like an explicit explanation before we take a decision on this important new clause.

The third issue that arises—for us, at least—in looking at this new clause is the provision for unanimity, whereby the board can trigger the Chief Constable's use of these exceptional powers to recruit outside the clause 46 framework only if there is unanimity among board members, or at least among all those members present at the meeting. The relevant provision is new clause 4(5), which would insert into the 2000 Act the following:

"The Board shall not give an authorisation under section 47A(1) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board."

If there were truly a danger of those who have not met the training requirements, and who are inappropriate for the other reasons that I have mentioned, being allowed into the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the back door—an extremely serious and sinister threat, were it to emerge—it would of course be highly desirable, as a brake and a protection, for just one member of the board to be able to veto the whole process. However, I assume that the Government are about to tell me that my fears are entirely fanciful, that no such abuse or Trojan horse effect could arise, and that the new clause contains sufficient protections—at least, I certainly hope that I will be told that. In the light of that, it makes no sense to provide for unanimity, because doing so gives a veto to any member of the board who may, for whatever reason, not want the Police Service of Northern Ireland to be reinforced, and who may want to use this provision to apply some form of political leverage. They would be able to say, "Whatever the needs of the Chief Constable and of policing in Northern Ireland, I oppose the recruitment of constables outside the 50:50 procedure."

Anything to do with the 50:50 procedure is highly controversial in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the divide. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats do not want to allow me to use the word "divide", but I am afraid that such a divide exists. Like them, I hope that it disappears tomorrow, but for the time being we probably have to use that phrase. It seems self-defeating to include in new clause 4 a provision that will almost certainly ensure that it never takes effect in practical terms. There will probably always be someone who will have some reason or other to veto it. It is very dangerous to allow members of the Policing Board to veto things, because if a single veto can affect such decisions, the pressure from the outside community on members of the board who might be considered potential candidates for exercising such a veto becomes very great.

My problem with the veto leads me to my third question. I should like the hon. Lady to explain the rationale for the veto as fully as she can when she explains the rationale for the new clause. In the meantime, we, as a responsible Opposition—we do not only criticise and find fault but to remedy where we see deficiencies—have come up with our own proposal. Amendment (a) to new clause 4 would delete from it the phrase "each member" and insert

"a majority of the members".

That amendment would mean that what is a sensible arrangement for dealing with an emergency or crisis in numbers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland might be of practical use and is more likely to be effective.

The new clauses and amendments in this group have been selected very rigorously, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they all relate to one another contributes to the coherence of our debate. The next new clause that I wish to speak about is new clause 8, which is the Ulster Unionist party's answer to the same examination question. It is a much better answer than the Government's new clause 4 and avoids the three problems that I mentioned. New clause 8 does not relax the training standards, and provides that a majority on the board is required. We therefore prefer it. If the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) presses for a Division, we shall support her. If new clause 8 becomes part of the legislation, the House will have done a good afternoon's work. The new clause not only avoids some of the perils of the Government's proposal, but has been much more clearly drafted than the somewhat convoluted text of new clause 4.

Moving logically on, again, I come to the new clause proposed by the Democratic Unionist party. It is slightly insidious because it is drafted in such a way that at first reading it might persuade any reasonable man or woman that there was nothing to object to. It seeks to insert into the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the sentence:

"It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable to take all steps he considers appropriate to secure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in its composition, represents the population of Northern Ireland."

I find nothing to quarrel with in that; in fact, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues on avoiding what I am sure the Liberal Democrats would have put in. They would have put in the usual modish mantra of political correctness about ethnic balance, balance for homosexuals, balance for people who are left-handed or have red hair or green eyes, and whatever. New clause 12 offers altogether a better formulation.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That was pitiful. Go for the Government for once.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Gentleman is less than fair. Had he followed our Northern Ireland debates, he would have seen that I rarely do anything else. However, I hope that I do so constructively. We oppose only when we think that there is a need to oppose. We are happy to support the Government—even on difficult matters, such as the 50:50 arrangements in section 46—when we think that it is right to do so. Of course we oppose when we see the Government making mistakes; and we ask questions, as I have been doing, when we think that there is a possibility of the Government making mistakes in legislation.

Let me return to the main thrust of the DUP's new clause. A second reading of it reveals the sleight of hand. The sentence that I read out is intended to replace the whole of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, thus removing the 50:50 mechanism. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends have consistently opposed that mechanism. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that there is not only a cogent intellectual argument, but a strong moral argument for opposing any discrimination of that kind. Because a balance must be struck between alternatives—neither of which is ideal—we have concluded that we ought to allow derogation, at least temporarily, from the principle of non-discrimination. That is why we support the 50:50 mechanism. We have taken that decision, so it will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends that we shall be consistent with that decision today. We are therefore unable to support new clause 12.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservative party was in error to oppose the 50:50 mechanism in the past?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I have been asked that question before—I think, by the hon. Member for North Down. It seems extraordinary that I should be asked, by the Liberal Democrats of all people, a question about consistency, a virtue to which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends subscribe. There is an irony in that question. 4.15 pm

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Answer the question.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I must be allowed to make that introductory comment, but of course I intend to turn to the question. I have said in the past that this is a very difficult decision. Indeed, I have never mentioned this point without saying that it has been a difficult decision for my party. I quite understand the strong reservations that members of my party have about this matter, and the fact that a different view has been taken in the past.

I speak from the Dispatch Box in support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Conservative party feels that we do not live in an ideal world; we live in a world that is never completely ideal, and there is sometimes a conflict between desirable objectives. There is a conflict between principles to which we are attached, and one must have the courage to face up to that honestly and say what one is going to do. One has to prioritise these principles; there must sometimes be a hierarchy of objectives.

We have also taken the view that the need to make a success of the peace process in Northern Ireland and to establish a Police Service in Northern Ireland that, for the first time since partition, if not before, really has a chance of gaining the allegiance of the whole population, is a sufficiently important objective to warrant a derogation, which must be temporary—I have always insisted on the word "temporary"—from the principles to which, in theory and in principle, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I are both attached. I hope that I have dealt with that matter.

I am expecting to be asked that question whenever I speak about policing in Northern Ireland. After all, that is what we are here for: to respond to the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House. I am perfectly happy to go on answering the same question, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed if he finds that in future I give a very different answer.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to move on, and I think that we have got as full an answer as we are going to get. I asked that question because, at one point, we worked very hard with the Conservatives, together with the Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist parties, to oppose the Government's introduction of 50:50. It is more than slightly surprising and disappointing to some of us that the Conservatives seem to have withdrawn on what the hon. Gentleman in his own words described as a principle.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I have explained that there are at least two principles at stake. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, in politics, one often takes a stand on an issue and loses the debate, and the situation moves on. One then has to decide whether to expend one's energies trying to unravel what has been achieved or to address current and future problems. We have taken the latter course, so there is no question of going back and trying to unravel the Mandelson Act. In fact, I have criticised the Government in these debates for trying to unravel the Mandelson Act, and we shall continue to do so. I am putting our focus on opposing making the Mandelson Act a great deal worse by introducing not only the basic Bill, which has some nasty flaws, but the initial new clauses that the Government suddenly decided to table, which were the subject of my remarks yesterday. I spoke at length on these matters yesterday, so I need not remind the House now of our strong feelings on those subjects.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government may not even be certain of how much support they receive from hon. Members on their own Back Benches? He may not yet have seen a written answer that I received today. The Secretary of State now says that on 23 February, at public expense, he entertained

"a party of backbench Labour MPs"

at the Hilton hotel at a total cost to the public purse of £639.35. Is that not—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That is a very lengthy intervention.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

That sounds extremely dubious. I thought that when the Government of the day—the Executive branch—were entertaining the legislature they would always do it on an all-party basis. I hope that my hon. Friend will send a copy of the document that he has just quoted, which is now on the record—we are all grateful to him for putting it on the record—to the Public Accounts Committee.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May we return to the debate on the new clause in question?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker—the more so because I am reaching the key point in my remarks.

New clause 20 is our main and, I think I can fairly say, original contribution to the issue of how to address the problem of police numbers in Northern Ireland at the present time. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discover the House's views on the new clause, so I shall press it to a vote, if I am able to do so, in a few moments' time.

New clause 20 is based on the acceptance of section 46 of the 2000 Act and the 50:50 mechanism, which we have just discussed. It would address not only one of the injustices, but one of the dysfunctions of the present system, which occurs when those from the Protestant or other community—perhaps that is the best way that I can describe it—have passed the tests and met the recruitment standards to be sent to the police training college in Northern Ireland and are told that their names cannot go forward because not enough people in the other category, the Catholic category, have put themselves forward, so they cannot be admitted to a career for which they would qualify.

That is unfortunate from two points of view. It is clearly unfortunate because the Police Service of Northern Ireland loses a potentially good recruit, and it is very unfair and unjust for the individual who is told, "Right, you passed the exam, but you can't have the prize. Indeed, other people who may not have higher marks than you will have the prize." So the question is how to try at least to reduce those anomalies and the sense of unfairness that results.

We propose in new clause 20 that, when any candidate has passed muster, scored the necessary marks and qualified for admission to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, that candidate should not be told, "Sorry, you aren't going to be recruited because you are in the wrong community group. Go away. That's the end of it." Instead, that candidate would be told, "I am sorry, we can't take you on today because of the 50:50 mechanism, but you will go on to a waiting list, or into a pool, and you will go forward as soon as you can." That response is a great deal better.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Does my hon. Friend not think that, in the interests of fairness, those who have gone through that process and qualified should be told that they will be given places in the police, perhaps on mainland Britain, in the United Kingdom until such time as the quota changes and they can go back?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Of course those people could automatically apply to another police service in the United Kingdom, but the people whom I have in mind will have decided that they want to spend their time, careers and lives in Northern Ireland. There is already a brain drain in many fields from Northern Ireland, which worries those of us who have the interests of Northern Ireland very close to heart, and I would not want there to be a brain drain of potentially able policemen and women. It would not be a totally satisfactory answer to say, "Seek your fortune across the water." What I am trying to do, so far as possible, is encourage people to feel that there is some purpose in staying in the pool, if we create one by virtue of new clause 20, so that they can pass into the Police Service of Northern Ireland as soon as possible.

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

Under new clause 20, if the individual were held for 18 months, would he be paid during that period?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

No, he would not; nor would he have duties to perform. Of course, he could take another job or continue with his existing activity. He would not be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but he would be assured that, as and when a vacancy opened, his name—or her name—would be brought forward automatically, to take advantage of that vacancy without any further formality or the need to pass any further test.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

rose—

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give way too often because we must move on.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for promoting new clause 20. Does he agree that it is absolutely ridiculous that applicants have been twice into the competition—twice into the pool—and still have not yet got a place?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Yes, I do. It is a great shame that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is losing good, potentially enthusiastic and valuable recruits and it is a great shame for individuals who had hoped for a career in the Police Service. They would have passed the test and thus know that they were capable of doing the job, but the door would be slammed in their face.

I have already set out why we must accept the higher need to ensure that we have a successful police service in Northern Ireland. We want to mitigate the sense of injustice and unfairness, and the loss of good human resources to the police. That happens under the present mechanism, which is why we tabled the new clause.

The new clause would also save public money—the Government can tell me how much—because if people pass the test but are not allowed to join the Police Service at that time, they have to take the test all over again. That is demoralising and a waste of time for them, and represents an unnecessary drain on public finances.

I set most store by pressing new clause 20 to a Division, but I should mention our other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 88 would make an assurance given by the Minister of State in Committee explicit in the Bill: that the purpose of clause 19 is to provide the ability to recruit from the Garda Siochana. Clause 19 allows the Chief Constable to recruit a person for three years under a special procedure, but it does not say that he may recruit from the Garda Siochana. We should not be afraid to say that the clause has that purpose, so the provision should be included in the Bill for the sake of transparency and honest government.

We are in favour of recruits from the Garda Siochana joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Such people are well qualified and trained. They would be mostly familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland and would be reasonably compatible with the service. In fact, I understand that the pay scale is lower in the Republic of Ireland, so I hope that we might find good recruits from there to address the shortage of policemen.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I shall, but it will be the last time.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Given the religious constituency of that police force, how would the hon. Gentleman strike the balance? He told us that he has gone back on what we thought his party believed in: that the rule should not be 50:50. He says that he is now prepared to wear that, but that police force could not provide the number of people to achieve that balance.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 20 rather than amendment No. 88. I believe that more nationalists and people from a Catholic and, indeed, republican background will join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That will certainly happen if the peace process is successful, if Sinn Fein joins the Policing Board and if other prerequisites are met. I hope that it will happen because it is the whole purpose of the exercise. Indeed, we might get a rush of many applicants who were either intimidated from applying by Sinn Fein-IRA or who were reluctant to apply until the peace process had achieved the comprehensive and definitive settlement that we want. I hope that many people will come forward after that happens. A pool of people from Protestant and other backgrounds could be absorbed into the PSNI immediately because of a new wave of Catholic applications. That is another reason why new clause 20 should be supported, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do that.

I shall return to amendment No. 88. It would be desirable to recruit people from south of the border and, indeed, from England, Wales and Scotland—from anywhere in order to meet the pressing crisis of numbers.

Amendment No. 89 is designed to kill two birds with one stone so that, when we successfully recruit Catholics from the Garda in the Republic, they qualify as Catholic entrants for the purposes of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. That would enable us immediately to recruit Protestants from the pool that would be created by new clause 20. So the measures fit together well.

To be frank, however, it struck me that the amendment might not be technically effective in achieving that purpose. We must also take account of the possibility that Protestants or other non-Catholics from the Republic of Ireland might want to be appointed, and they would add to the Protestant quota. That would be fine, but the amendment might not be effective in achieving that. For that reason, we will not press it to a vote, but I thought it worth while explaining the spirit in which it was tabled.

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

I shall attempt to concentrate on new clause 4, mainly because the essence of the other amendments and new clauses has been debated at great length, not just in terms of the Bill's contents, but in terms of many other pieces of legislation that preceded it.

I am intrigued by some approaches to the new clause. As hard as I try, I simply cannot understand how it is a Trojan horse, or how it is either a Machiavellian Government device to cover up the fact that 50:50 is not working—that implication might not be deliberate, but it is hanging about—or a devious way to get hordes of Catholics into the policing service by the back door. I suppose those concerns could lead to the Trojan horse syndrome, but I fail to understand why people should be fearful. The board is allowed to appoint a specified number of constables who have specified policing skills. The new clause is not a device to allow people in by the back door or a device to cover up the fact that people are not joining. Instead, it provides a means of making specified expertise available in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

It follows that those with specified skills have undergone training. Wherever they come from outside Northern Ireland, they must have undergone training to give them a specified skill that is required and desired within the PSNI. That is crucial. The 50:50 element comes into play at the point of training. It is not a clever device to get people into the police service by the back door; nor is it a clever device to compensate for a failure in the 50:50 process. It is quite the opposite. It is a means of ensuring that the professional Police Service of Northern Ireland has access to the highest specified policing skills. It is right that that is done, and it is right that it be done not just in the interests of good policing, but to meet a gap in skills caused, I admit, by the retirement of many serving police officers as a result of changes and the compensation package recommended by Patten.

I should like to touch on another need. We tend to be a very insular people in Northern Ireland: we tend to look inward at our problems and we often assume that we are the only people in the world who have problems. That is hardly the case. It will be a distinct advantage to have people with skills coming from outside the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring another dimension to the attitude within policing and towards policing. Such input is facilitated by new clause 4. The more that happens, the better it will be for serving police officers in Northern Ireland and the better for public attitudes to policing on the ground. I greatly welcome the provision. It is technically correct and right that those specified skills are brought into the police service.

I find it amusing to hear some of the fears that have developed recently for expediency purposes or whatever. They are derived directly from Patten, who is explicit about them. I see that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) is becoming rather excited, so I shall continue to give him reason for his excitement by quoting what Patten said. He clearly recognised that many Catholic people from Northern Ireland who, for various reasons, were serving in police services in other parts of the world might want to come back and bring their skills back with them. That is happening in every form of industry at present. Patten recommended—and I quote, for the further excitement of the hon. Member for East Londonderry—

"that the recruitment agency should seek to identify such officers, contact them and encourage them . . . to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police."

He could not be more explicit than that, and I believe that it was right to make that recommendation. For far too long, the north and south of Ireland have sent people abroad, taking their skills and training with them, to be lost for ever to the north and south of Ireland. I greatly welcome the opportunity to encourage those skills back.

Lateral entry is another element of the legislation. I welcome provisions on that, because the subject should be viewed for its potential benefits. I quote Patten again. He stated:

"Lateral entry of experienced officers from other police services, and secondments or recruitments from non-police organisations should be actively encouraged."

That is happening, and has been happening for some considerable time in respect of police services in England, Scotland and Wales. It is written into legislation that that will happen with the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, that legislation has passed through both Parliaments, which I welcome, because the more interchange there is, the better policing becomes and the more prejudices and myths start to evaporate.

I recommend that we reconsider another of Patten's recommendations, which is sometimes overlooked:

"recruitments from non-police organisations should be actively encouraged".

Policing has changed dramatically everywhere over the past 10 to 15 years. Various skills and disciplines are needed; they are not offered in normal police training and we need to bring in outside help to develop such expertise.

I shall not touch on the other amendments and new clauses, as I shall not support them. I conclude by setting out some of the safeguards in the new clause to show that it is not a fiendish plot. The board must agree unanimously to the authorisation. I understand that it was the board itself that made that requirement. The provisions apply only for two years, after which the board must again reach unanimous agreement on them. There is thus no way in which the procedure can be manipulated by either the Government or the Chief Constable.

The crucial point is that the Chief Constable must make a case to the board that the police service needs persons with specific skills and there are no such people in its ranks. The board will then be asked to facilitate the Chief Constable's request by going outside the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring in people who are already trained to exercise the necessary skills. The board must be shown that the need cannot be supplied from within the service.

The proposal is good. Apart from its practical advantages, it will introduce new thinking not only to policing in Northern Ireland but to attitudes to policing. Above all, however, it sets out specific requirements.

We have heard various theories: the Trojan horse, the greens under the bed and the droves of nationalists being pushed into the police service by the back door. Although it is amusing to listen to them, we should disregard them and accept the new clause for what it is: a good provision that could bring substantial results.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Did the hon. Gentleman read the reports published in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times, which came straight from the Sinn Fein leadership, that one of Sinn Fein's next demands of the Government—who, of course, always give in to its demands—will be for special placements for republicans in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who should have special treatment so that they can represent the republican movement.

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

I must be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not have the opportunity to read either of those worthy publications yesterday; they were not in any of the news outlets available to me. However, I am not one of those people who hang on every word said by republican leaders. I am not one of those who are obsessed by their propaganda. I am not one of those who would agree to give them a full day's debate on two issues, as others did. I do not make my political decisions or base my political thoughts, policies, decisions or activities on what is stated by people from that organisation.

It is curious that those who become obsessed with that organisation, hang on its every word and develop almost paranoia about an essential part of its propaganda actually facilitate it. I will not give it that satisfaction. I shall make up my mind according to my views, those of my party and my beliefs, not on the comments of any gentleman whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not deny that yesterday he made it clear that he believed that the House's discussions constituted only the beginning of the debate. He said that it would discuss justice and the courts and that they, too, would be included in the same circle of argument. Unless I was sleeping or dreaming, he made that distinctly clear. I was impressed by his comments because I had already made them. I said that the provisions marked only the beginning and that the Government would advocate more of that way of thinking. The Conservative party is now advocating it, too.

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

I said what the hon. Gentleman attributes to me; I have been saying it for years. I advocated the devolution of justice and policing powers long before any Government decided that they might do that. I supported it long before the organisation to which DUP Members referred became involved in the political process. My reasons remain the same and are especially pertinent to policing. I believe that devolution comes of age and becomes capable of sustaining itself when it makes hard decisions. Policing and justice require such difficult decisions.

Making decisions about justice will not be easy, just as those on policing have not been easy. I ask hon. Members not to view the matter as a response to a demand by the organisation to which they have referred. For years, I have advocated that we should act because that is the way to make devolution work. I make a plea to the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to consider that

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,"

than what Gerry and Martin say every day. They should disregard them at times and listen to other people in the community. Those people might have more interest in the community as a whole than in party political advantage.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We are considering an interesting string of amendments, which cover ground that was well worn in Committee and previously. The discussion is none the less useful. I am mindful of the pressures of time and I do not wish to detain hon. Members unnecessarily, but I cannot allow the pejorative remarks of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on political correctness to pass without comment. He appeared to equate the discrimination suffered by, for example, homosexuals, with the disadvantage of being left handed. His remarks will be heard beyond the Chamber, and many in the wider community will listen to them with disbelief. When one hears such comments from the Conservative Front Bench, it is hardly surprising that its own party chairman describes it as "the nasty party."

I am unapologetic about being politically correct. Any politician should want to be politically correct. There is not much point in being here if we are politically wrong. However, the options available today are for the Liberal Democrats to be politically correct, for the Labour party to be politically successful, and for the Conservative party to be neither.

The Conservative position with respect to new clause 4 is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman started from the perspective that he believed that the principle was wrong. He then made it clear that his party supported the Government's aims but that the Conservatives felt it necessary to introduce some further mechanism to dilute the principle. At one point, it felt as though we had fallen through the looking glass.

However, the hon. Gentleman said one very interesting thing that gave away the truth of his party's position. He said that he accepted that there was an intellectual and moral argument in favour of our position. That is why the Tories are prepared to support the Government—our position has intellectual and moral credibility, and so one would not expect the Tories to support it.

The amendments before the House form a sort of hierarchy. Government new clause 4, the Conservative's amendment (a) and new clause 20, and the Ulster Unionists' new clause 8 all aim to make a bad situation better in some way. I have no problem with them for that reason, and would support them all, but it reveals a certain paucity of ambition if all that the House can do is to make a bad situation slightly better. Surely hon. Members should be engaged in making a bad situation good? Is not that why we are all here? To that extent, I find myself making common cause with the Democratic Unionists today. Their new clause is a fairly blunt tool, but it represents the purest position.

Liberal Democrat Members will support the new clause if it is pressed to a vote. I accept that Government new clause 4 is a substantial improvement, and I accept that it allows them some flexibility.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, all the senior officers to whom I have spoken and a very large number of policemen and women in the PSNI accept—albeit with the reservations that I have set out—the new 50:50 recruitment system as a temporary measure?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

They do not.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Will not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) find himself in conflict with the Chief Constable over the needs of policing in Northern Ireland?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be the first time that I have been in conflict with a chief constable. However, he will have heard the comment made from a sedentary position behind him. That shows that his is not a view held universally in Northern Ireland. I take the views of chief constables carefully into account, but Members of Parliament are elected to decide matters of principle. It is not for chief constables to make policy decisions. A strong distinction must be made between policy and operational matters. Policy matters are rightly the preserve of this House.

As I was saying, new clause 4 provides a lot of useful flexibility. I do not understand why the Government should insist on the veto provision, which would be removed by the Conservatives' amendment (a). The veto is very unhelpful. I believe as a general rule that one cannot have too much democracy. The bottom line is that vetoes are profoundly undemocratic. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The reality is that new clause 4 will drive a coach and horses through section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, because we are considering the recruitment of constables, and that is what the discriminatory recruitment procedure attaches itself to. That is why the board will have to be unanimous. There would inevitably be divisions within it, and it is not hard to guess where they would lie.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We are now well and truly into the can of worms. Once one moves away from the strict principle that there should not be discrimination, one gets compromise, which begets more compromise, and that is how one reaches such a convoluted position that one can operate only if there is unanimity. I accept the force of the hon. Lady's point. I still think that the imposition of the veto would be regrettable.

New clause 8 has a lot to recommend it. It is a novel approach to the same old fence. The possibility of suspension would give a degree of flexibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it would be preferable for there to be no suspension in the first place, but that being the case I have no difficulty in supporting her in that regard.

New clause 12, tabled by Democratic Unionist Members, is one with which we are broadly sympathetic.

Finally, I turn to new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. We can see the force that it would have as an operational measure. Indeed, I can see no reason why the Government are unable to accept it. Even if they will not accept it in its present form, there is no reason why the Minister cannot say that the Government will find another form of words that achieves the same mechanism before the Bill goes to another place. The new clause is the ultimate modest proposal, to use a Swiftian analogy. It is an operational measure that would not in any way affect the principle of 50:50 recruitment. It might go some way towards addressing the profound sense of grievance that exists in the Unionist community among those who feel that they have lost out on a career opportunity. If that situation lasts for the whole 10 years that is envisaged, closing the window in a young person's life for joining the police could effectively exclude a whole generation of people from serving their community in the police. Given the staunch support that the Minister has received from the so-called official Opposition, I do not understand why she is not prepared to make even that very small concession.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I want to speak to new clause 8, which is supported by Unionist colleagues whom I am pleased to see here today.

It is well known that I object to the discriminatory recruitment procedure that was put in place almost three years ago by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. I find religious discrimination deeply offensive and repugnant. The Government tell us time and again that they are committed to full implementation of the agreement, which was endorsed in referendums by the majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. That agreement twice on the same page guaranteed to everyone in Northern Ireland

"equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of creed"

or political opinion, yet the British Government wilfully defied the wishes of the people of the island of Ireland and legalised discrimination two years after those referendums.

Section 46 has had a detrimental effect not only on recruitment procedures, but on confidence in the agreement itself. It ill behoves the Government to maintain a discriminatory recruitment procedure on the statute book. We have made changes to policing legislation to assist Sinn Fein in deciding whether to join the Policing Board, but the main cause of low Catholic recruitment to the police has always been intimidation and thuggery. It was not discrimination that deterred young Catholic recruits from entering the RUC; it is a well-known fact that it was intimidation by republicans. If Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board and call on young republicans to join the police force, in which, of course, they should rightly play a part, there is no justification whatever for maintaining any discriminatory recruitment procedure on the statute book.

New clause 8 provides that, at the request of the majority of the Policing Board, when the Chief Constable has a shortfall in recruits, the provisions of section 46 can be suspended for six months. We tabled the amendment now because section 46 will come up for renewal and consideration only in spring 2004. Until then, it will remain on the statute book, and it will divide and become a source of great grievance in many households throughout Northern Ireland, where letters of congratulation to a young person on having passed their examinations are followed by rejection on the basis of their community background. That is wholly unacceptable.

As for new clause 4, I am not at all pleased to see it. It allows the Government to have things both ways—to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they can maintain the discriminatory recruitment procedure of section 46, which means that there will be a shortfall of detectives who have the skills that we need at present in the Police Service. On the other, they can make up the shortfall by bringing forward constables with special skills, as the provision operates at the level of constable. I will therefore not support, nor will I encourage my colleagues to support, the new clause, but I hope that hon. Members will support our proposals.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I want to confine my remarks to new clause 12 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Friends. In doing so, I must express extreme regret at the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seemed to be indicating that the Conservative party is abandoning the principle of merit and merit alone as the decisive criterion when considering employment, whether in the police or elsewhere.

The purpose of the new clause is to try to encourage a representative police force. I hope that that aim is shared across the board politically. In every avenue of responsible society in Northern Ireland, we want to encourage a representative police force. We must concede that, given the serious situation that has prevailed for a number of years in Northern Ireland, the police force is not representative. In doing that, however, we must examine why that has been and is the case—we cannot simply say that it is unrepresentative, and take steps to make sure that it becomes representative. In doing so, we must put at the top of the list of reasons why it is unrepresentative the factor of intimidation. That has been a factor for a number of years. When the RUC was established in 1921, the number of Roman Catholics was about 20 per cent. of the whole. That number rapidly went downhill not because of discrimination, but because of intimidation and because, even in those days, the IRA found it acceptable to attack and intimidate those applicants to the RUC.

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

The historical fact is that the level went from 22 per cent. up to 28 per cent. when a number of people were transferred from what was then called the Royal Irish Constabulary into what became the RUC. The level rose to a high of more than 28 per cent. within five or six years and then began to drop for a number of reasons, one of which was intimidation.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I totally accept that, and I hope now to expand on it. One reason for the fall in numbers was intimidation. That has continued until today.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it not a fact that the recruits coming in from the old RIC were largely and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, that was indeed the case, but discrimination was not a part of any of the recruitment procedures in the old RUC, or even the RUC of latter years.

The stark reality—I know that this grates with the Government and with supporters of the 50:50 contention as set out in section 46—is that, in the past, there was no discrimination in RUC recruitment. In fact, for many years, extensive efforts were made to recruit Roman Catholics. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) outlined how some of them came to be recruited into the RUC because of the changeover from the RIC to the RUC. There was no discrimination against Roman Catholics coming into the RUC.

The present reality under section 46, however, is that there is discrimination against Protestants coming into the present Police Service. There can be no grey areas on discrimination under section 46. Discrimination is a bit like a pregnancy—one cannot be a little bit in favour of discrimination, just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant. One is either in favour of it or against it. Any hon. Member who supports the retention of section 46 in its present format is for discrimination. There can be no prevarication about that—those Members will be for discrimination. That is why we unequivocally seek the removal of section 46. We do so because it discriminates.

People may respond, as the Government have done, by saying, "Yes, but this approach is being taken for a very good reason" and telling us that they want to do something that is unacceptable to try to reach an acceptable conclusion. Such people say that, because of the very low numbers of Roman Catholics, they are going to take the 50:50 approach, but only temporarily. My response in the Committee and today is the same: if that is the case, and if people accept this perversion and this obnoxious and reprehensible system of discrimination, why should they stop at the police? Why should it apply only to the police, and only where Roman Catholics are coming forward in small numbers? Why should people not say that they will employ 50:50 recruitment procedures in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, where there is a problem in getting Protestant recruits? But, we hear, "Oh no; that's different." Why do we not adopt such an approach in the Child Support Agency or in the general service grades of the civil service, where there is a problem in getting Protestant recruits? I never hear an argument for taking that approach, and I hope that I never will, because it is reprehensible and unacceptable. The merit principle must be the one that we abide by in getting people into employment in the Police Service.

The issue is this: how do we create a more representative police force? Should we advertise more comprehensively? We would endorse such a suggestion, and if special efforts were made in all schools to persuade leavers to apply for positions in the police force, we would endorse that as well. Such efforts would not compromise the merit principle. In the past, there have been several thousand applicants for the various tranches of recruitment in the police who have been assessed in terms of suitability.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that the next batch of new recruits is down to single figures, although 60 places must be filled? Does he agree that it is a travesty that we cannot call on previously successful young recruits simply because they come from the Protestant community?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I know about that, because it was in the public domain only yesterday. It was said that in all probability fewer than 10 people would be offered employment, although according to a police spokesperson 60 places are available. Because of the reprehensible, repugnant 50:50 rule and the insistence on implementation of section 46, more than 50 places will remain unfilled.

Over the past three phases of recruitment, thousands of people have applied, of whom several thousand have been regarded as suitably qualified. All those people—whether Protestant, Catholic or of some other faith—should have been offered employment purely on the basis of merit. The highest-scoring candidates ought to be recruited, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, atheists or whatever. If that produces a particular breakdown, so be it. That is the beauty of merit: it means that the best-qualified people get jobs.

Unfortunately, over those last three phases, hundreds of Protestant recruits have been told, "Yes, you are suitably qualified, but no, you will not be offered employment." When they have asked the reason, they have been told that it is the 50:50 rule. They have gone away disillusioned and disenfranchised. They and their families ask what is the point and what is the future in Northern Ireland when, although they are considered to be suitably qualified, they are told—because their religion is other than Catholic—that they have no future in the Police Service.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of figures published yesterday by the Policing Board? They reveal that confidence in policing in Northern Ireland has dropped from 67 per cent. last year to 60 per cent. this year. That is due in no small measure to the 50:50 recruitment policy, which is regarded as discriminatory, and the lack of police officers on the streets to deal with rising crime.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I know of those figures, and I agree that they are due in no small measure to the 50:50 rule.

There is a common fallacy that until a few years ago Catholics did not apply for positions in the Police Service. In fact, the father of the present SDLP leader was a member of the RUC. He was a Roman Catholic, he was employed on merit, and he served admirably, with courage and distinction.

Three days before Bloody Sunday, in Londonderry, two police officers were killed. One was a Protestant, the other a Roman Catholic. Both had been employed on merit, and both were murdered. No distinction was made between their religions. They were brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA. The last RUC officer to be shot dead in the city of Londonderry, only five years ago, was a Roman Catholic.

Merit and merit alone must be the criterion that decides whom we employ in the Police Service. For that reason, I would find it impossible to endorse a temporary abrogation of the merit principle. If it is wrong in principle to discriminate, it is wrong in principle to discriminate on a temporary basis. It cannot be justified, it cannot be defended, and for that reason I fervently hope that I will get the opportunity to press new clause 12 to a Division.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I support new clause 20. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) put the case for it very well, as did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who made a powerful case and said that he looked forward, as I do, to hearing what the Minister could possibly say that justified the rejection of the new clause.

My hon. Friend emphasised, if I read him rightly, that our present support for the principle of 50:50 is essentially on the basis that it is a choice between two evils. It is worth pointing out that new clause 20 and even new clause 12 would probably not be before us if a certain new clause that was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on behalf of his party had not fallen in Committee. That new clause sought—I will put it plainly—to drive a coach and horses through section 46 of the 2000 Act by deleting it entirely. The new clause sought to give the Chief Constable discretion to

"take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff."

Who were those persons? According to the new clause, they were

"persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under- represented".

That was voted for in Committee not only by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland, for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) but by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and by me. Had it been passed, section 46 of the 2000 Act would have been substituted by the new clause.

I return to 50:50. I have been listening carefully to the debate. I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for East Londonderry said and with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Naturally, I support my Front-Bench spokesman, and I heard him say clearly that we are making a choice between evils. However, I entertained a moment of nostalgia when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that there was at one point a coalition of interest between our party, those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and those Members from the Unionist parties who drew together closely to oppose 50:50. Since our support for 50:50 is temporary, I trust that soon we will be able to reform a coalition along those lines. I look forward to that day.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The provision would enable the Chief Constable to bring into the PSNI a specified number of officers with specialist policing skills in areas where he is able to demonstrate that the service is suffering a significant shortfall: for example, in detectives. This exceptional mechanism could only be utilised where certain criteria, established by the board, have been met, and where there is unanimous approval for its use from the board.

These exceptional arrangements will be available to the Chief Constable for two years, starting from the date when this Bill receives Royal Assent. I must reiterate that this proposal is intended purely to alleviate the Chief Constable's current, and hopefully short-lived, resourcing problems in respect of skilled constables. In no sense does it reflect any departure from, or dilution of, the 50:50 recruitment arrangements recommended by the independent commission, which continue—despite the nonsense said in the Chamber today—to operate very successfully, and which will remain the norm for recruitment at the rank of constable.

Amendment (a) would enable these measures to be activated with the approval of only a majority of the Policing Board, rather than with unanimity. The board has, as I have said, shown maturity on this and earlier occasions in achieving unanimity in respect of difficult and sensitive issues and I have no doubt it will be able to do so in the future. The detail of this exceptional mechanism has been the subject of lengthy and painstaking consideration by the board, and it has expressly requested that its unanimity be a precondition for use of the measure. The Government are eager to honour the board's wishes in this regard, and I would invite hon. Members not to go against the express wishes of a cross-community, all-party Policing Board that has arrived at a solution to this particular and immediate problem.

New clause 8 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if requested to do so by the board, to make an order suspending the 50:50 provisions, either if the required numbers of police trainees or police support staff could not otherwise be appointed or if the number of serving officers was below complement at the time of consideration. That power already exists in legislation.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that the level of applications had fallen off. He is wrong. The level of applications from Catholics has remained constant at around 35 per cent.; that is very favourable by comparison with previous recruitments. Why is the measure needed? It is not because of any failure of the 50:50 recruitment measures. One of the impacts of the voluntary severance scheme has been to leave specialised areas of the PSNI seriously short of experienced officers at constable rank; I have already given the example of detectives. We are considering a temporary expedient that will remedy a problem recognised both by the Chief Constable and the board. It is in no way a reflection on the 50:50 arrangements.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also asked about the waiver of training requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—who, I am bound to say, is the only Member participating in the debate who has actually read the Government's new clause—made it clear that the recruiting of specialist skills for a specific purpose requires experienced officers from other police services to apply. I want to take hon. Members back to the new clause.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that a specified number of persons who have a specified policing skill would be sought. The new clause makes implicit the requirement for unanimity; therefore we could not conceive of a Sinn Fein or republican element manipulating the measure. It is simply nonsense to suggest that that would occur.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman might want to contain himself for a moment. I shall come to his party's position in a moment, if he will allow me.

The new clause makes it clear that we are expecting experienced constables to apply, under the measure, from other forces across the United Kingdom. To require them to undergo the training currently expected of new entrants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland would therefore be nonsense. The Government have said on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that the possibility of a limited exception to the 50:50 provisions to alleviate the current skills shortage was under consideration by the Policing Board.

As we signalled in Committee, the new clause before the House today has the board's unanimous support, and I want to pay tribute to the commitment of its members in putting forward the proposal. I know that, for some, it challenges deep-seated views, but it is a sign of the board's maturity in addressing the real issues facing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and enabling it to become still more effective and efficient. I had hoped that hon. Members around the Chamber would have welcomed the measure in that same spirit, and with generosity. Instead, what have we had this afternoon? The official spokesman for the Conservative party took 50 minutes of the House's time to demonstrate his complete inability to understand a measure that every member and political party on the Policing Board has not only understood but effectively drafted for the Government's consideration. The Liberal Democrats argued that they had adopted an intellectually and morally superior position on the matter. Quite frankly—

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It was the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford who said it in the first place.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

No, I am responding quite specifically to a comment from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The Liberal Democrats propose to oppose new clause 4—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

No, we do not.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

In that case, I apologise. I withdraw that comment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Just for clarification, we have one small issue with new clause 4, but the Minister must understand that we are going to vote for it. She was under a misapprehension there.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that I gave way and allowed that intervention, because it has clarified a misunderstanding on my part.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

rose—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. While I have the Floor, I am not going to give way to an hon. Member who took 50 minutes to explain how he simply did not understand this measure—which confounds me.

The Chief Constable asked for this measure, and the Policing Board considered it at length. The representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party on the Policing Board accepted the need for it. I will be more than disappointed if their party representatives oppose it in the House today.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it not a fact that there was no vote on this issue in the Policing Board? Tell the House the truth!

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I had not given way. I had finished my comments.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I beg your pardon. Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have a point of order? He does not.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause 8 — Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland

New Clause 5 — Members of PSNI Engaged on Other Police Service

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

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

The new clause is related to but has no direct bearing on the provisions of clause 19, which allows the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is expected that the first application of the new clause, if enacted, would be to allow members of the Garda Siochana to undertake secondments with policing powers to the PSNI. Such secondments would also take place in the other direction, and the Irish Government will accordingly introduce legislation soon to allow secondments with policing powers from the PSNI to the Garda Siochana.

One of the fundamental issues in dealing with secondment is discipline. Usually, where a member of the PSNI is seconded, he may be dealt with under the PSNI's own conduct regulations for any breach of discipline that occurred during the secondment, as if that service had been with the PSNI. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to modify the relevant regulations in respect of disciplinary matters, to enable investigations and hearings held in a country outside the United Kingdom to be taken into account by the PSNI in its own disciplinary procedures.

That means that, for secondments to the Garda Siochana, the PSNI would be able to take into account any investigation, hearing or other procedure undertaken in the Garda Siochana against a member of the PSNI during disciplinary procedures. Clearly, given the potential effect that the imposition of sanctions could have on any officer's career, the choice of penalty should remain the responsibility of the home service. However, in practical terms, it makes more sense for the host service to carry out the investigation and hearing, since those would take place in the jurisdiction in which the alleged offence would have occurred.

There are two points that I should like to make in the short time remaining. First, the arrangements will be reciprocal, so any Garda officer seconded to the PSNI against whom an allegation of misconduct was brought would be subject to investigation by the PSNI in exactly the same way as a PSNI officer. He will have taken the PSNI attestation and be subject to the excellent PSNI code of ethics, published last month. Equally, he would fall within the remit of the police ombudsman, if a complaint were made. Secondly, we hope and expect to have very little recourse to such regulations. I am confident that any member of the PSNI seconded anywhere in the world would behave as an ambassador for the PSNI, and that their conduct would be exemplary. However, legislation must provide for every eventuality.

I should explain to hon. Members why the clause is being brought forward at this stage. As we stated in Committee, negotiations between officials from both police services, the Irish Government and the Office of the Police Ombudsman have been going on for some time because of the complex detail and the agreement that was needed. Agreement on these difficult issues has just been reached. I can give the House an assurance that this will not be the only opportunity that hon. Members have to comment on the issue, as the details of the disciplinary procedures will be set out in regulations, on which there will be full consultation.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We agree with the new clause and have nothing to add to what the Minister said.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 20 — Protected Disclosures by Police Officers

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 22, leave out 'as a police officer'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

It is amazing how quickly we can move on when our minds are focused.

The purpose of the clause is to provide full protection to police officers who make protected disclosures. The clause has the support of the Chief Constable and the ombudsman, and replicates provisions contained in the Police Reform Act 2002.

We decided that the provision currently made by the clause needed to be refined to include not only members of the PSNI and the PSNI Reserve but also members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the harbour police. The purpose of the amendment is to rectify that matter and to make provision for those individuals consistent with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 13, line 23, leave out 'Chief Constable' and insert 'relevant officer'.

No. 17, in page 13, line 25, after 'accordingly', insert—

'(3) In this Article "the relevant officer"—

(a) in relation to a police officer, means the Chief Constable;

(b) in relation to a person holding office under section 9(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service) means the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and

(c) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable, means the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables in question.'.—[Keith Hill.]

It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [10 February and 26 March], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 6 — Codes of Practice

Schedule 1 — Powers Exercisable by Designated Persons

Clause 1 — Consultation with Board

Clause 37 — Codes of Practice

Clause 38 — Orders and Regulations

Schedule 3 — Repeals and Revocations

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

As has been said before, the Bill further implements the Patten report and last year's review of policing arrangements.

Although they do not always attract the attention that they deserve, the Bill includes valuable measures that will directly assist the Chief Constable in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland both more effective and more representative. They will also help the Policing Board in its role of ensuring that the police are both effective and efficient.

I have in mind, in particular, the detailed provisions allowing the Chief Constable to extend civilianisation and the measures that would allow for the introduction of a number of experienced constables with expertise, such as detectives, and of secondees from other forces.

I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is faced, as Tom Constantine regularly reminds us, with an unprecedented change programme. To have made so much progress, while delivering high-quality policing, is a great tribute not just to the Chief Constable and his leadership team, but to all the police officers who serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whether regular, full-time or part-time, and to their support staff right across the organisation. It is also in the best tradition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary from which PSNI has evolved.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board. In particular, the Board has recently launched the district policing partnerships. I am delighted to see such interest right across Northern Ireland in the delivery of local policing and in improving community safety. I have no doubt that the district policing partnerships will be a significant new chapter in taking policing forward in Northern Ireland and in making it a safer place for all inhabitants. The police ombudsman, too, has an important role to play in the new architecture.

I shall say something about the wider political context. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach plan to return to Northern Ireland before the middle of next month to take forward the work that was advanced in the discussions at Hillsborough earlier this month. I do not want to rehearse the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) suspended devolved Government last year. However, as he said then, as others have said recently and as I, too, know, it is essential to restore trust if devolution is to be restored.

Confidence led to the Belfast agreement in the first place, and it is a prerequisite for its continuance. I welcome the positive, continuing contacts between political parties since the Hillsborough talks and I hope that they can be built on. However, as all hon. Members know, something more is required. As the Prime Minister made clear in his Customs House speech last October, it is time for acts of completion. To use his words, that means:

"Commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent . . . an end to tolerance of paramilitary activity in any form."

Sinn Fein's annual Ard Fheis starts tomorrow. I hope that the party and its supporters take the opportunity to look forward. There are tremendous opportunities, not only for them but for wider society if the chance is seized.

I reiterate that none of the provisions that we discussed yesterday will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by a subsequent order, which will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses in Parliament. I repeat on the Floor of the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would envisage introducing a commencement order only in the context of acts of completion.

At the risk of provoking some hon. Members' wrath, it may be helpful to conclude by turning again to the initial chapter of the Patten report. Paragraph 1.7 states:

"There is plainly a close relationship between the success of the overall Agreement and the changes in policing. If the fresh start for politics founders, it will be more difficult to make changes in policing; and if changes in policing are resisted (or mishandled) then there could be a serious impact on the attempt to rebuild democratic politics in Northern Ireland".

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Would not the Minister like to give the context of section 19 of the Belfast agreement, which authorised Patten and the commission to make recommendations that would encourage widespread community support? A raft of policing proposals—some are already in law and others are about to be enacted—has been introduced in Northern Ireland. They have no widespread community support.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. I know that many members of his party would make the same point, but the changes in policing have been supported. For example, they have cross-party support on the Policing Board. I look to that to continue as a result of the changes to the Bill.

As I have said previously, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has come a long way already. The new beginning for policing has not foundered, despite what some of its critics would have us believe. One has only to consider the reception that was given to the Chief Constable and the two new recruits at the White House earlier this month to realise the high regard in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland is held in America and elsewhere.

Since the agreement, the change has been most marked in policing. I pay tribute to all who have played their part. I look forward to the day when those who have yet to do so step forward to embrace policing on the basis that the Prime Minister set out.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her closing remarks but the point that I wish to clarify is crucial to whether we support the Bill.

I understood from yesterday's debate that the commencement orders would not be brought to the House until after acts of completion had taken place. I listened carefully to the Minister, and she used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion". Does "in the context of" mean "after"?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Throughout our proceedings yesterday and today, I used the phrase "in the context of acts of completion." I assure the hon. Lady that acts of completion—putting away paramilitary activity in all its forms in Northern Ireland—is an essential part of the change that we want to happen. I am not going to get into a debate about the detailed sequencing of how events might happen. The acts of completion that we are looking for have been stated many times.

I began my remarks by talking about the necessity of re-establishing trust, but that trust must reside not just in the Governments of Britain or Ireland. The parties to the arrangements that we want to re-establish in Northern Ireland will have to make those partnerships work. It is within that context that we would consider the changes being brought forward.

The Bill provides a further basis for the development of the new beginning to policing that is already well under way. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House. 6.10 pm

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Three clear conclusions emerge from the debate. First, the Government's abuse of the guillotine in business as important as this is nothing less than scandalous. Rafts of new clauses and amendments have gone through without discussion.

Secondly, an otherwise good-tempered debate was marred towards the end by the most extraordinary display of bad temper by the Minister of State that I have seen in the House for a long time. She appeared to be so riled by our criticism of the Bill that she lashed out with insults to all concerned—to me, the Liberals, and the Democratic Unionists. I choose my words carefully, but she seemed in danger of giving a false impression to the House by implying that there had been a vote on the Policing Board about the substance of new clause 4. I am assured by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—an honest man—that that was not the case.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

rose—

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I shall not give way to the Minister, although I have never failed to do so before. Earlier, she declined to give way to me because she knew that she was utterly in the wrong. I am now going to pay her back in kind. She must recognise that the courtesies in the House must be reciprocal.

The matter of reciprocity has an even more important context. The third thing to emerge from the debates over the past two days is that the Government have reverted to the bad habits of the past. They prepare and bring forward and offer new concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA in advance of, and in the absence of, any necessary movement from the other side—that is, acts of completion. The tactic is completely misconceived, at a time when we have been waiting in vain for any such moves from Sinn Fein-IRA, and in a week when a major arms cache has been found. Much of the arms and other equipment may be new, and so represent very clear evidence of a breach of the ceasefire.

It is utterly inept of the Government to bring forward concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA and to try to incorporate them definitively in primary legislation. The Government have been guilty of that ineptitude over and over again. There were moments when they seemed to accept that it was a great mistake, and I am sorry that they should be making the same mistake again.

This is a bad Bill, made a great deal worse by the incorporation of the new clauses introduced by the Government on Report. It is based on bad strategic and tactical thinking—or perhaps no such thinking took place, even though it should have. The Bill's inadequacies have been ineffectively covered up by a display of bad temper.

I can think of no reason why the Opposition would do otherwise than vote against the Bill. I hope that it will receive the more profound discussion that it so evidently deserves in another place, and that their lordships will be able to give it the treatment that we in this House have been unable to give it because of the Government's abuse of the guillotine.

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

In many ways, the conclusion of the Bill's passage through this House is the end of an odyssey in relation to policing and my participation in it over the past 30 years.

I say to people here who do not like the Bill that if, like me, they were a spokesman for a small party and had lived and worked in south Armagh over the past 30 years trying to sell a message that was political to the core because it centred on justice and policing, they would have a different perspective on what has transpired today on the Floor of the House. It is a sea change. I advise hon. Members to think back to what was happening—dead bodies day and night; policemen being killed and killing; constituents being killed; emergency prevention of terrorism legislation. That was the staple diet. Somehow or other, we were able to keep alive the hope that there was a political process; that peace was available and that central to both peace and the political process was a resolution of the policing issue. I maintained for years that when we cracked policing, we cracked the political difficulties. I still believe that passionately for many reasons, but for this one especially: that one cannot have a viable organic political process that works in devolutionary terms in a divided society unless it works together effectively on political and administrative issues, and it cannot do that unless it addresses the issue that goes to the core of stability, which is the provision of fair and just policing for the society that it serves. We now have the opportunity to achieve that.

I am sorry that two years were wasted, but I believe that we have now got it right. There have been enormous changes. The Minister referred to the Policing Board, which has been, and will be, an enormous success. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would agree that in the past the Police Authority was not a place for him or for me. People were chosen. One had to have the right colour eyes to be part of that set-up. If a couple of castle Catholics, maybe two garden centre Unionists and at least one lapsed member of the Alliance party were stuck on to every board in the north of Ireland, that was called representation and accountability. Whatever the difficulties that arise from people's political views, warts and all, the current situation is much more viable and contains within it the seeds of hope that did not exist before.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I just want to pay tribute to those who served on the Police Authority, many of whom were threatened and intimidated during their years of service. I want it to be on the record that they did a service for the people of Northern Ireland.

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

The hon. Lady misses the broad point that I am making. I am not attacking the people who were on the Police Authority. I know that some people were intimidated; I know that some people resigned, and I know why they felt obliged to do so. But those are things of the past.

I want to finish with a political point—a brutal political point, because political points in the north of Ireland are never that nice; they are underpinned by a harsh reality from which we sometimes try to hide. The negotiations that took place at Weston Park represented an act of completion in relation to proposals on policing that was essential to the Bill and to the political process. I regard that as the act of completion in terms of this issue. If it is not the act of completion in terms of this issue, there will be a reaction not just from people such as me, but right across the board.

I trust that Weston Park was the act of completion, because I want to refer to a further act of completion. I know how difficult it is for Ministers to speculate about what will happen in the next two or three weeks. I have the freedom now to say what I believe will happen and what must happen. It would be inconceivable if, in effect, when this legislation has been drawn to a close, as an act of faith in the future and as an act of reconciliation within the community in the north of Ireland, those who call themselves patriots did not prove it by taking their rightful place on the Policing Board. That is the acid test of all the political theories, ranging from the principle of political consent down to every dot and comma of the Good Friday agreement.

That act of completion must be there to facilitate other acts of completion, which will lead to the restoration of devolution. And in my view, that will happen. I put it directly and bluntly to the Sinn Fein leadership, "Show your courage, show your political courage, show your capacity to look at the whole question of justice and policing in the north of Ireland, and put your representatives where you must put them: on the Policing Board." There can be no prevarication about that. There can be no further demands. There can be no back-room negotiations, post-negotiations or other movements on this issue. The moment of truth has come for that organisation and for everybody else. I believe that they will respond, and that they will do so for this reason: people in England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States and all the European states are looking at what is happening here. At present, there are distractions, but they are looking here, because this is the template for how these issues of violence and division can be resolved. The Northern Ireland resolution, the Good Friday agreement and this legislation contain the template of what can be applied in other countries throughout the world.

That is why it is so important that we do this not just for ourselves, for where we live, and for those whom we represent, but for other places throughout the world that can learn something from what we have gone through. It is a small thing to ask, in historical terms, to show now the courage to lead from the front in terms of real justice, real stability and real peace, which will arrive from this legislation.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) started his remarks with a sobering and timely reminder of the importance of policing to the situation in Northern Ireland and the real and tragic human cost of not accepting its importance. His remarks were very pertinent to this Third Reading.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred in his opening remarks to the Minister, suggesting that there had been a slight tetchiness. For my part, I have found the Minister nothing but charming throughout the passage of the Bill, especially once she realised that we were supporting her. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said to me at one stage, "Someone needs a hug." I do not know whether he was referring to the Minister or the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford; I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.

I should like to comment in passing that the conduct of today's business in particular has vindicated the decision taken by the Liberal Democrats, along with Conservative Members, to vote against the timetabling motion yesterday. I hope that, once the smoke of battle has cleared, so to speak, the Government might take that consideration on board.

The Liberal Democrats will support the Government in the Lobby on Third Reading, but we shall do so with just a slight hesitation. We will support them in no small measure because of the very generous concession that the Secretary of State made to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire yesterday in relation to proceedings on new clause 2, particularly his admission that the judgment of when acts of completion had been carried out was a political question. I found his candour on that issue helpful and refreshing.

The Minister opened her speech by referring to the Patten report. She said that the Bill was an extension of Patten and the next stage. I do not take too much issue with that suggestion. The Patten report seems to be a little like the Bible, as everybody can find something that they are happy to quote with approval—

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Sacrilege.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I can say sincerely that I do not intend any sacrilege. Let me say instead that the use of the Patten report is a bit like the use of the Bible in that respect.

We are broadly supportive of the Government's aims on policing. We recognise the importance of cross-community involvement in the police service. As the Minister must surely now understand, we are not yet convinced that 50:50 recruitment is a suitable mechanism for achieving that aim, but we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point. We recognise the importance of policing at the very heart of the process of normalisation.

The Minister spoke about the wider political context, which is also worthy of consideration, and about the need for a restoration in trust. That strikes at the very heart of the matter. However, I remind her of the remarks that I made yesterday about the fact that the Government have a role to play. She spoke about real, total and permanent acts of completion. For our part, we would prefer "full cessation of violence" as a form of words, but it amounts to the same point at the end of the day. I say to her that the Government set themselves a very high standard—real, total and permanent—and that, if they should find themselves tempted to fall in any way below that very high standard, they would risk doing serious damage to the process that they have sought to pursue with some vigour and with no small measure of success, as today's proceedings have indicated. It is all very well for me to say, as we did yesterday, that that would be a point of disruption for us. That is largely academic. If it were to happen, it would be a point of disruption not only for us, but for the wider community. That is why the maintenance of those very high standards is so important.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am very pleased to be called to speak on the Third Reading of this very important Bill.

I should like to take my cue from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), with whom I often find myself in agreement, although not always. It is a pleasure to have him here this evening. The cue is that he referred to his constituency and the experience from which he spoke, and I respect his experience. I should like to spend a few moments on my experience in North Down.

North Down was strongly supportive of the Belfast agreement, but nothing has undermined confidence in the agreement more than police reform. That is undoubtedly a fact, as will be shown in the forthcoming elections.

Despite that, I have attended Unionist meetings on many occasions—although not recently—and expressed not enthusiasm but criticism. I have said that I want Sinn Fein members to take their rightful places on the Policing Board, and to call on young republicans to enter the police service and take responsibility for policing rather than passing the burden to someone else. They may see it as a poisoned chalice, but they should be invited to take up that poisoned chalice and carry the burden along with everyone else.

As Members can probably tell from my tone of voice, I am deeply angry about the fact that the Provisional IRA will turn out to have been responsible for the Castlereagh raids. Their responsibility is no longer a hidden secret. That was on 17 March last year; as if we were not satisfied with that, there was then the revelation that a substantial spy ring had been operating for some time at the heart of Government.

My confidence has been completely undermined by the events that have taken place since spring last year. I do not think I am alone in saying, as a Unionist, that my confidence in Sinn Fein needs to be rebuilt—and that cannot be done if Sinn Fein are tied in any way to a paramilitary army.

I thank the Minister for taking my intervention earlier. One issue is fundamental to whether my party supports the Bill this evening. I understood the Minister to have made it clear that the commencement orders would be made only once acts of completion had taken place. Today, however, we were told that they would be made in the context of acts of completion. That, I am afraid, is not enough to rebuild our confidence, and makes it impossible for us to support the Bill—unless the Minister wishes to intervene now and tell me that the orders will be made after acts of completion.

I say that with regret. I spoke on Second Reading, before the addition of the two clauses relating to district policing partnerships, disqualification of those with convictions and the Belfast sub-groups. I made clear our recognition that the vast majority of the Bill had come to the House of Commons at the request of the Policing Board, which has done a magnificent job in serving the entire Northern Ireland community. It had come to us at the request of the Chief Constable himself. I do not want to undermine the wonderful job that the board has done, or the wonderful job that our new Chief Constable is doing. That is why, on reflection, I supported new clause 4. We need more detectives because of the increased crime throughout Northern Ireland, which does not exclude North Down.

I distinctly remember welcoming, on Second Reading, the additional resources for the Chief Constable, particularly investigation officers, detention officers and escort officers. There was nothing new about that, in that it duplicated existing arrangements in Great Britain provided for in the Police Reform Act 2002.

It is with deep regret that, if the Minister cannot assure me that the commencement orders will be made after acts of completion—

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

rose—

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Oh, thank you. Excellent.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady by reverting to the phrase used yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the clauses we were debating would

"not come into effect unless there are acts of completion. They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 361.]

It was in that context of trust that I tried to answer the hon. Lady.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for clarifying that point, and I look forward to the agreement of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said yesterday, but I did not actually think that it clarified matters.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that one thing that still needs to be clarified is who is involved in the process of agreement. Unless the Minister wishes to intervene again, I shall assume that agreement must come from all sides in Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I hope that the Minister will intervene on me again, because I am not happy with what she has said. I certainly understood, following talks at Hillsborough, that that was the context—that the commencement orders would not be made until the acts of completion. Therefore, I am disappointed that we cannot have a categorical clarification on the Floor of the House that they will come after the acts of completion.

The reason I say that is that we must build trust back up, as the Minister said, in both communities. The Unionist community believes in devolution and in sharing power in the Executive. I certainly do. I cannot wait for the Executive and Assembly to be up and running again; I am deeply committed to devolution. However, there will not be trust unless the people of Northern Ireland—not just one community but all the people of Northern Ireland—can be assured. They deserve to know that those who sit in government are in no way connected to a paramilitary army. That is all I am asking for.

The vast majority of the Bill comes, rightly, from a unanimous Policing Board, which I commend warmly, and from the new Chief Constable, who is doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances. It is with a heavy heart that I say that, unless we have clarification, we cannot support the measure on Third Reading.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

In a very important debate, the Prime Minister spelled out his principles in respect of terrorism. He said that

"weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant is the surest way not to peace, but—unfortunately—to conflict."

IRA-Sinn Fein are tyrants. Members of certain Roman Catholic families were shot. Men know where they are buried, but they will not even attempt to get the decomposing bodies to allow them a Christian burial. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that that is the case. If that is not tyranny, I do not know what is.

A very noble sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who served in Newry, was shot dead by the IRA. The night before he was to be buried in the family plot, it was made clear to the undertaker and to the priest that his body would not rest in the family plot. It had to be taken from the Warrenpoint area to Banbridge to be buried.

The diabolical hatred and venom of tyranny is seen in many such cases. To bring it up to date, I mention what happened in my constituency at Ballymena when a young person from the Roman Catholic Church was recruited to the new police structures. An attempt was made to kill him, his father and his mother. Literature is spread around places of work inciting people to treat former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the way they were treated when they were in uniform and to treat every member of the new police service in the same way.

What the Prime Minister said, rightly, are my principles. He said that looking back over the years

"the truth is that we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, and to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 765.]

I speak in this House on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and on five occasions I have had the majority vote across the whole of the Province, not just in North Antrim. No assurance tonight from Ministers will satisfy those people, given what the Prime Minister told me in this very House when the acts of completion were being discussed.

On 27 November, I asked if he was aware that

"in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"

That was a clear question.

The Prime Minister said:

"I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies"

not the Government, the Policing Board or we who have responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland but

"everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]

Before the House accepts this Bill, it should hear what the Republicans have to say. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said what she said. She made it clear that she was with the Government and agreed with what they were doing on many things that I and members of her own party would not agree with. However, she has become partly disillusioned because of what is happening. If it is getting through to her, how do people feel in Northern Ireland tonight?

We listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) yesterday, and he made it clear, as a prophet, that we would soon come back to deal with even more serious matters.

What happened at Weston Park? Why have not the people of Northern Ireland been told? If the process is for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland, why were we not told what happened? The leader of the Ulster Unionist party said that he did not know what was agreed at Weston Park, but this I do know: I am a member of the Stormont Assembly, and the leader of the SDLP in the Stormont Assembly said on the record that he was told by an official when he protested at Weston Park, "You have no guns." At Weston Park, there was a betrayal and a surrender to tyranny.

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

I can help the hon. Gentleman. What happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is published in full in the revised implementation plan, which is there for everyone to see. I regard that as an act of completion in its totality. It has always been my belief that there should be devolution, and that, for it to work, the powers related to policing and justice should be devolved, because it will then come of age. That was not what happened at Weston Park, but what happened at Weston Park in relation to policing is on record in the revised review.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that nothing more than that is in the latest measures that we are being asked to put our seal on tonight? Is it just Weston Park, full stop?

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

And Hillsborough.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Indeed. Is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh saying that nothing was added? We know very well from prominent sources of information that many things were added. The Prime Minister—and the Taoiseach and his friends—had to come and sit for long hours because something was being added, and I think that we are entitled to know what it was.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I repeat that I regard what was agreed at Weston Park about policing as closure. May I assure him that, if anything was added to that, either at Hillsborough or subsequently, I would regard it as an absolute breach of negotiating principle?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We have heard Government spokesmen telling us what the people of Northern Ireland feel, but they do not know. They have been there on a few occasions, but they do not know the mind of the people. If they had a mind to know it, they could have organised a selection process and put their own candidates into the field. When I was speaking in the Chamber yesterday, a man shouted from the Labour Benches, "What about democracy?", yet his own party will not even recruit in Northern Ireland and ask the people what they feel about—

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

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sorry that I allowed myself to go down the path of the person who interrupted me—or whom I allowed to interrupt me. All that I am saying tonight is that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens—Roman Catholics and Protestants—are very concerned about what is taking place, and about what is going to take place in the future. I know Roman Catholics very well, and I serve them very well, as they all—even their priests—have said. Many of them feel that it is a stigma that they are not permitted to get a job entirely on merit. The House needs to recognise that.

The one thing that the House must learn is that it can pass this legislation. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister will come to tell the rest of us who do not know—I do not know to this day—what happened at Hillsborough. I asked to have a look at the document and was refused, but the gunmen in the IRA who will be at the conference this week know. Why should a gunman who has slain policemen know what the future holds for my people when I do not? No Member on the Labour Benches would tolerate that, yet we are asked to tolerate it. If the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland are not recognised in the House, upon the House will come problems. These things are very serious.

I want to make one final point. A huge cache of arms was found in the Ormeau road this week. The police usually tell us that such arms belong to dissident republicans. This week, however, they made a statement saying that they were the arms of the Provisional IRA. Those arms are not the usual arms; they are up to date, purchased after the Provisional IRA signed the ceasefire. I am asked tonight to go back to my people and say that the law of the land now is this new policing for Northern Ireland, which contains proposals hammered out behind closed doors and partly revealed in the document that preceded this debate. I say to this House that no democratically elected Member should be asked by any Government to sell something to their people unless they know what it is. However, we will have to wait until the two Prime Ministers come to our Province and let some of us know a little of what is in this document.

I want to make one other point. I was told by the previous Secretary of State that if the Democratic Unionist party were to join the Policing Board there would be no cries for IRA-Sinn Fein to join it; that there would be no campaign, run by the Government, to get them to join; that IRA-Sinn Fein would have to wait until the election took place, and then re-appointments would be made. I asked him, "Is that your word?", and he said, "Yes, that is my word." Yet the board was hardly in operation, when the call went out: Sinn Fein must be on this board. Evidently, the new Chief Constable thinks that it is his business to get Sinn Fein on to the board.

During yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked what will happen, but she knows what happened in her own party, and where it stands.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? If, as he recognises, Sinn Fein is involved in the continuation of terrorist activity, and we reach the stage where it is invited, within the law, to come on to the Policing Board, will his party withdraw from the board with the Ulster Unionists?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have already said that publicly. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not read newspapers, although perhaps he does not read those newspapers that report me. We certainly will not be on any Policing Board with IRA-Sinn Fein—how could we, when we have taken a stand on the Executive and tried to be absolutely consistent? If Members want to close the Policing Board, vote for this; if they want to take the Unionists off the board, vote for it. That is what is happening. I said publicly in Omagh the other night—it was recorded in the press—that the Chief Constable does not know what he is doing when he is telling people these things.

I greatly resent what the Minister said about the way in which the police were received in the White House. Royal Ulster Constabulary Members, including Sir Ronnie Flanagan, were well received in the White House years ago. To say that the way in which the White House is receiving the police shows for the first time how successful this initiative is ignores the fact that the police force can never be successful until it is completely democratic. It is not totally democratic when it closes the doors, puts on the locks, and says to the Protestant people, "You're not getting your position, but you will get it by a percentage." However, we are not even talking about the true percentage, because there are more than 50 per cent. Protestants in Northern Ireland. Also, others who are not Protestants or Roman Catholics are put in together, and told that they will get 50 per cent.; however, the Roman Catholics will get 50 per cent.

I do not know what ear the Minister is listening out of. I was with the Chief Constable and a deputation some time ago. He told me that it was impossible to police Northern Ireland at the moment because of the 50:50 rule. That is what he told me, and I have evidence for that. That is a fact. What is more, never has the 50:50 rule been kept to, because it is impossible to keep to it. Sometimes, it could be 52 per cent. or 53 per cent., but that cannot be tested. I need to say tonight that this House must take care in what it is doing about the police in Northern Ireland.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Time is short. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I will take great pleasure in voting against the Government tonight, because their record on policing in Northern Ireland and their destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are a disgrace. The Government should be ashamed of that, rather than heralding it as a new start to policing.

Because of the restrictions on time, I was unable to move new clause 15, which would have recognised the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland—people who were proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down knows, the RUC was incorporated in existing law, but was operationally ripped out of Northern Ireland—from the force, from the police stations and from the insignia. There was to be no display of any sign of Britishness, although a later decision made an exception to incorporate a crown in the new badge of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I have been here only two years, unlike the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has been here for almost 30 years. However, I will play the long game for as long as the Unionists of South Antrim select me and elect me. The elected majority in this House will come and it will go—I should say, elected dictatorship, not elected majority. There will come a time in this House when the smaller parties will hold the balance of power and we will have an opportunity to restore the dignity, operationally, of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I look forward to opposing this motion, which will not improve policing. In four weeks' time, a deal will be put to the parties in Northern Ireland. I can assure hon. Members that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland will look at that deal. At present, we read about it only in The Irish Times, the Irish Independent and our local papers in Northern Ireland; but we will look at that deal and evaluate it. We will make our judgment on whether Sinn Fein is a legitimate democratic party. That judgment will be heard loud and clear in the governing body that rules my party—the Ulster Unionist Council. A clear message will be sent to this House that we have been fooled and conned for long enough in the political process called the peace process, and that we will try to move ahead in a new, democratic and accountable way. At present, the process is not working and does not reflect the views of the law-abiding unionist people of Northern Ireland.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I will not support any move to have representatives from my party on the Policing Board with Sinn Fein-IRA, and nor will I support Sinn Fein-IRA coming into the Executive of Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future.