Police (Northern Ireland) Bill — The Secretary of State's long term policing objectives — 21 Nov 2000

Mr James Gray MP, North Wiltshire voted in the minority (Teller for the Noes).

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 35, after ("police") insert

("and of district policing partnerships")

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):

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

arrangements should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community.

in the case of an independent member, he failed, before his appointment, to make to the Secretary of State full disclosure of a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere;

he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment.

is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 16, leave out ("numbers and")

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

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

contain an assessment of the requirements for educating and training police officers and members of the police support staff.

particularly with regard to human rights.

training was one of the keys to instilling a human rights-based approach into both new recruits and experienced police personnel.

fundamental principles and standards of human rights and the practical implications for policing

The majority of RUC personnel participated in a one-day training course given by internal RUC trainers.

The Human Rights Act training programme was not piloted with a sample of the audience at which it was aimed. To do so would have been normal practice in the provision of new large programmes of this nature.

The Commission drew the RUC's attention to the need for internal valuation and independent external evaluation of the training . . . No evidence has been provided of any formal evaluation system of the course, either externally or internally.

The majority of participants received their training from RUC trainers, with only the Strategic Command receiving training from lay trainers or lecturers.

Of the talks, three were reasonably good . . . One speaker in particular adopted a fairly searching and critical approach, suggesting that a variety of RUC practices would need to be re-examined in the light of the Human Rights Act's commencement.

However, the report goes on to say:

One speaker's talk was not so good--it tended towards saying that some people get over-excited by human rights and that there are human rights activists who give the subject a bad name.

Several officers nodded in agreement with the points made in this speech, but their views were not brought out into the open and discussed.

The training for Special Branch was to last a full day but the trainer dropped a number of items from the training programme, including an exercise where the police officers being trained would discuss the issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998 likely to affect their work.

It is the Commission's view that on this occasion the tutor gave the training very superficial treatment.

The tutor's knowledge about human rights appeared to be weak . . . He had a complete inability to field questions about the Act, e. g. the proportionate level of force appropriate to deal with a person on drugs who has a knife and is involved in a stand-off with police.

The trainer demonstrated a poor attitude to the training, in that he reinforced a negative view of the Act expressed by some participants at the start of the training. The trainer made discriminatory comments during the session (whilst the group did not join in, no-one challenged him).

Unexpected interventions were made by the trainer in that he offered suggestions as to how to get around several of the Act's requirements.

The serious flaws in the delivery of the training by the one internal RUC trainer and one of the external speakers indicate that there were significant weaknesses in the training programme. The commission is therefore not confident that the training course was adequately delivered.

the focus of the human rights training was very narrow and legalistic.

the management of the human rights training to have been flawed in several key ways.

The lack of piloting, failure to carry out formal internal or external evaluations and the lack of any obvious monitoring of the integration of human rights principles into practice seriously undermined the effectiveness of the training programme. In addition, management's failure to identify the internal trainer's weaknesses and the continued use of the inappropriate external speaker indicates a flawed process for the delivery of training on such a significant topic as human rights.

At the meeting on 11 August 1999, the Chief Constable assured the Commission that the RUC were benchmarking its progress in relation to international standards through its relationship with both the Garda Siochana and the Council of Europe. The Commission found little evidence of training in international standards other than those in the ECHR or of benchmarking of progress through training to date.

All in all the Commission concludes that, while the RUC has shown a willingness, even an enthusiasm, to engage with the Commission, they have been less ready to implement the Commission's recommendations or to treat the Commission's views with the seriousness they deserve. The Commission acknowledges that the RUC have done a lot of work to prepare for the commencement of the Human Rights Act, but we are not convinced that this work has always been of the appropriate nature or standard.

the RUC have shown a willingness, even an enthusiasm, to engage with the Commission, they have been less ready to implement the Commission's recommendations.

The Commission acknowledges that the RUC have done a lot of work to prepare for the commencement of the Human Rights Act . . .

Only one person drew attention to the international documents other than the Convention.

central proposition of the Report that the fundamental purpose of policing should be--

the protection and vindication of human rights.

particulars of the way in which those requirements are to be met--

Details of performance appraisal systems for police officers.

The Board's Policing Plan shall include . . . details of performance appraisal systems for police officers.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 13 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 9, line 9, at end insert--

("( ) When a district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1), it shall at the same time send a copy of the report to the Board.")

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):

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

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments 15 to 23 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 25, 27, 28 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 101.

An official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.

Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole.

Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including . . . ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole.

Question put , That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:--

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 121.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con0 110 (+2 tell)070.0%
DUP0 30100.0%
Lab250 (+2 tell) 0061.0%
LDem27 0057.4%
PC1 0025.0%
SDLP2 0066.7%
UKUP0 10100.0%
UUP0 7077.8%
Total:280 121063.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive