---

Mr. Spellar: The new clause seemed to me somewhat like a Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflet. We know the idea: find out when the pavements are going to be repaired, put out a leaflet demanding that they be repaired, then put out another one saying, "Thanks to the sterling efforts of your local Liberal Democrat 'Focus' team, the pavements have been repaired."

The Opposition and others will be aware from the wide range of exchanges in the House that I announced the consultation on antisocial behaviour orders, and that I compressed the consultation period in an effort to meet the target of introducing them before the summer. My difficulty in dealing with the issue in the way suggested—by incorporating it into the Bill—is that even the compressed timetable, which finished on 1 April, would have given us considerable problems. We wanted to introduce the measure at a fairly early stage in the Lords, which, as Members know, is where the legislation started.

As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) rightly pointed out, although the submissions were not unanimous, the great majority of them were in favour of our suggestion. In that regard, the response was fairly positive. It is true that we could not introduce a straight read-across from legislation for England and Wales because of the different structure of local government. As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, I accept that we could have acted more expeditiously, but I can reasonably argue that we have now moved matters along fairly rapidly.

The suggested course of action of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—bidding for an additional slot in primary legislation—would cause considerable delay compared with dealing with such matters through an Order in Council. The situation on the streets of Northern Ireland demands that early action be taken, so I intend to proceed in the manner described. I hope that we have support for the provision.

Mention was also made of racially aggravated offences. I recently concluded a consultation on a draft Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. It will make provision for such matters in Northern Ireland, and I intend, subject to parliamentary procedures and timetables, to have the legislation in place by the summer.

So we do recognise the problem, and we are taking action and moving matters along. In the light of that explanation and reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Swayne: Antisocial behaviour is not crime and it is a mistake to treat it as such. It requires a swift remedy; it cannot await the lengthy proceedings of a conviction. We all abide by certain rules in society, and if I may I shall draw a simple analogy. Those who travel to my constituency along the M27 often encounter an obstruction in the outside lane. We are directed to move our cars into two lanes, so at an early stage we begin to
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 644
 
do so and to form an orderly queue—but someone always whizzes past on the outside, jumping the queue to get to the front.

We wait and put up with it, and they continue to whizz past. Then someone immediately behind who is unable to stand it any longer pulls out of the orderly queue and drives past. The driver faces a dilemma: to sit there and abide by the rules, or behave like everyone else and be antisocial. Antisocial behaviour is a cancer; it leads to the complete breakdown of orderly society and causes misery for so many people on estates throughout the country. It is an urgent matter, requiring attention.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on the initiative that he has taken in his constituency. I will reflect on it and perhaps do the same in mine. On reflection, he is right; I have been far too patient in providing in the new clause for a further six-month period. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the Government's decision is seven years too late. The Minister may well congratulate himself on introducing the measure swiftly, but it is inappropriate to deal with such complex law through a statutory instrument.

The Bill was the proper vehicle for such a measure: it should have contained provision for antisocial behaviour orders. There is nothing urgent in the Bill—nothing that could not have waited. The only urgent matters are the antisocial behaviour orders and other measures—and they are not in the Bill. The point has been well made. The Minister has missed an opportunity. He could have delayed the passage of the Bill and done the job properly. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

Membership Of The Commission

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'Chancellor' to end of line 5.

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

No. 5, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'their' and insert 'his'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A)   At the beginning of subsection 8 of section 3 of the 2002 Act, insert "The lay members should be selected on the basis of the additional value they would bring to the Commission's deliberation, including such qualities as experience of selection processes, the court users' perspective and the ability to assess the personal qualities of candidates".

(1B)   (1)   In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act in paragraph 11 (Delegation) for sub-paragraph (1) leave out from "functions" to end and insert "except the function of selecting a person for appointment, or recommendation for appointment, to an office, to any of its committees".

(2)   In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act, leave out paragraph 12.'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—

'(1C)   In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act after paragraph 8 insert—

"8A   (1)   A Committee for interviewing for appointment as a High Court Judge shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of appeal acting under section 3(4), a lay member and a judicial member.

 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 645
 

(2)   A Committee for interviewing for appointments at deputy resident magistrate and above shall include one member of the judiciary at the tier to which the appointment is to be made.

(3)   A Committee for interviewing for appointments to a tribunal shall include a person with detailed knowledge and experience of the tribunal concerned.'.

No. 25, in page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3.

No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 40.

No. 9, in schedule 1, page 12 line 5, at beginning insert

'in section 1 of the 2002 Act, leave out "of Justice".'.

4 pm

Lembit Öpik: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has had the pleasure of inspecting every detail of Kirkwall airport on a fog-bound morning. I have decided to blame the Government for the weather, which is clearly a conspiracy, because they are so afraid of the amendments that we have tabled.

The Bill establishes a judicial appointments commission for Northern Ireland. It will comprise five judges and a member of the Law Society, plus members of the lay community. Under the criminal justice review, lay members of the commission should be representative of the whole community—for an obvious reason: it is sensible to do so. However, the Bill introduces a requirement that all members of the commission should be "reflective of the community".

My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland made several important points in Committee. It is apparent that the review recommended that lay membership of the commission be representative of the community, but it did not recommend that the entire membership should be. The Government proposals go beyond that, making the entire commission representative, which poses a number of theoretical and practical difficulties.

The amendments would restrict the duty to the Lord Chancellor and restrict the ambit to lay members of the commission so that only the Lord Chancellor could appoint such members. The Government have adopted a different position, but I do not understand what they are trying to achieve that they could not have achieved originally, or how, in a practical sense, they can meet their objectives. We have nothing against the principle that the commission should be representative of the community as a whole. Who could dissent from that? However, we are worried about how that will be achieved in practice.

The amendments would change the Bill back to the position favoured by the criminal justice review, so that the need to be representative of the community would apply only to lay members, who would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Our point is that, in practice, it would be impossible statistically for the commission to be representative of the whole community. The census figures—I shall not read them out—make that perfectly obvious.

Through their comments and actions, the Government repeatedly give the impression that they believe that the community as a whole consists of two large bodies of people—broadly speaking, loyalist Unionists and republican nationalists.
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 646
 

Is the Minister at long last going to acknowledge what many of us have said a number of times: the Government, to some extent, entrench divisions in the community by talking always about the two communities or the two halves of the community? It would be progress if he at least said that the Government accept that the Northern Ireland community is more diverse than many ministerial comments have implied.

In order to justify their position, the Government must explain several things. How exactly do they perceive the process of judicial appointments? What pressure would be put on the Law Society and on individuals to ensure that they were representative of a cross-section? An individual will come from a particular background, and unless the Government are suggesting a strange hybrid person who has spent some time in each community and in each social and ethnic background, it is clearly preposterous to think that one person can represent a cross-section. If the Government do not intend to enforce that provision for each of the four groups making appointments, the question remains of what process the Minister expects to be used to ensure that each interest group works with the others so that the commission as a whole is representative. It will not be good enough for the Government simply to speak against the amendments without giving specific and clear explanations of how they will resolve those difficulties. We are talking not about draft legislation or mere ideas, but about specific rules that will be made on the basis of what the House decides.

Another question is whether the Minister is saying that the requirement to represent a cross-section applies to disabled people, women, young people and so forth.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister and other Members have to say. The Minister did not give a plausible explanation on those points in Committee. If he believes that a reflective composition is worth pursuing, he must give us an assurance that the Government have thought through the detail. In the absence of a plausible response, I may have to divide the House.

---