| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on the one hand, that noble Lords on the Benches opposite do not want a debate at all, but, on the other hand, that we should spend two days on it. Which is his option?
There is no question of the House of Commons tearing itself apart. Were I a betting man, and had I a spare £5 note, I would willingly bet the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on any odds that he cared to offer me, that the House of Commons will vote for a ban on hunting with hounds. I am ready to sit down while he takes me up on my offer!
Our manifesto—unlike the party of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we are able to deliver on our manifesto—states:
- "we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked [in the Lords] we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".
I believe that it is wise to revisit this matter. It is an issue on which many people feel passionately and on which some are open to rational debate. It is possible that we can arrive at some sort of legislative compromise. If that is possible, Parliament should have this opportunity. That is all we are offering. In the other place there will be a day's debate. In this House, quite fairly, and I hope honourably, I have suggested that, because passions run high and because many of your Lordships are genuinely interested, we ought to start at 11 o'clock in the morning so that we have ample opportunity for every voice to be heard.
I remind your Lordships that this is a perfectly civilised way to deal with the matter. On 12th March 2001 the Second Reading debate on the Hunting Bill started at seven minutes past three. According to my record, there were 63 speakers, not counting interrupters, and there were 10 hours and 41 minutes of debate. Most noble Lords who were present, or who took part or who read the debate, thought that that provided a fair opportunity to discuss the topic so that every voice could be heard. In suggesting that we start at 11 o'clock I am trying to accommodate all noble Lords who have differing views that they want to express.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Leader of the House for his statement and support his view that the debate should start at 11 o'clock so as to give a full opportunity for noble Lords to express their opinions. Like the Leader of the Official Opposition, on these Benches we too shall have a free vote.
I suggest that the crucial issue will be how the debate is framed, and whether, as the noble and learned Lord implies, we should offer the whole range of options that are before the House. That is the crucial basis on which it may conceivably be possible to reach a reasonable consensus. The noble and learned Lord's well known ability to arbitrate and to mediate almost anything will be put to an extreme test by trying to frame the Motion so that all the options can be seriously considered.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness. We shall have a free vote on these Benches. This is an entirely appropriate issue for a free vote. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. We need to have all the options available so that they can be voted on. That is our purpose. The drafting will be technical and that is why we want to
spend a little time producing a range of options that will be available for your Lordships to discuss, to debate and to vote upon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to put a further question to the noble and learned Lord. In his original statement he said, not unexpectedly, that the Motion that will be put before your Lordships' House has to be thought out by the Government and presumably thought out in the light of what happens in another place where there is to be a free vote. If the debate in another place is to take place the day before the debate in this House, we shall not have much notice of the government Motion. Therefore, would it be better, from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of this House, if there were an interval of a day or two—preferably several days—between the decisions of another place and our discussion in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has mistaken my point. The purpose of holding the debate in the Commons first—if your Lordships will allow me to give my view—is to allow your Lordships to be informed by what has been said and decided upon in the Commons, but not oppressed by it. I believe that that is a perfectly proper way of approaching the matter. I did not say that it will be a government Motion. I said that the House authorities are considering the form of the Motion. As has been said by the noble Baroness, it should be couched in such a way that reasonable options are available to be debated and voted upon.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably the question being asked in the other place is exactly the same as the question being asked in this House. I am a little puzzled therefore that it is only our House that is considering the terms of the Motion. Is there not some sort of collusion between the two Houses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
Proceeds of Crime Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Police Reform Bill [HL]
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [National Policing Plan]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert "After consultation with relevant persons,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, which is grouped with Amendment No. 11, I crave the indulgence of the Committee to speak for a moment on the broad debate to set these amendments into context.
We are about to commence a serious Committee stage. In my experience Part 1 of this Bill is unique. Every clause within it has attracted the Motion that it should not stand part of the Bill. Since I have been in this Chamber, which is now more than eight years, I have not come across that before, nor have I found anybody else who has. It is therefore a unique situation. A number of reasons lie behind that difficulty and I crave the indulgence of the Committee to run over the salient points.
I have said before that one of the functions of this Chamber is not solely to consider the use that might be made of powers in Bills by honourable persons; we have to consider the use of those powers by those who may be less honourable than we expect Members of Parliament to be. However honourable we may be, we cannot guarantee—this makes me immensely sad—the honour of all of our successors. If one considers the powers written into Part 1 of the Bill in particular, there is concern that in the wrong hands those powers would be open to abuse.
A second concern is that the Bill takes the Secretary of State into the micro-management of the police service. I have two problems with that. I have spent a long time in public life and I am not yet wholly convinced that Whitehall knows best when it comes to administering services to the public. My experience suggests that, on balance, Whitehall probably does not know best and that it is better to let the people who are dealing with the problems on the ground get on with running those services, to encourage them in doing so and, of course, to steer them in the way that Whitehall wishes to go.
But this Bill virtually gives the Secretary of State the power to give orders to platoon commanders, certainly company commanders, in the field. That is a strange situation. It is not good for the morale of the police service that we have legislation before us which apparently suggests a lack of confidence in the thousands of people throughout the country who do an extremely good job on behalf of the public. That is the effect of the Bill .
Part 1 of the Bill breaks the normal lines of communication from the Home Office through police authorities to chief constables. Because it does so, it begins to erode both the authority of senior officers in the field and provides the possibility that the regulations that come from the Home Office will affect operational performance. That is not desirable.
The third reason the Bill is wrong is that it flies in the face of the Government's supposed devotion to devolution and the movement of authority out from
Whitehall and Westminster to other parts of the country. If ever there was a measure drawing the reins of control severely into the centre, it is Part 1 of the Bill. We see a serious situation arising in Part 1 and I hope that, as we go through the Bill, there will be some movement from the Government. If not, we shall face severe problems.
- "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State . . . to prepare a National Policing Plan [and] to lay that plan before Parliament".
Amendment No. 1 simply inserts the words,
- "After consultation with relevant persons",
- "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State".
- "Before preparing the National Policing Plan for each year, the Secretary of State shall consult",
I have taken part in many a debate in this Chamber in the past concerning whether or not we should list those who are to be consulted. Once we start making lists, we inevitably get into the argument as to whether it is right to include this or that particular group, why groups have been left out, and so forth. I prefer Amendment No. 1 but we consider it wise to back both horses in this race; hence the two amendments before us. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page