| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and to the teaching fraternity. There are circumstances where the caring teacher will very much want to know what is happening to the child that has been part of the flock. We will think about these matters but I am not clear where in the Bill there is an acknowledgement in certain circumstances of the linkage between education and the Bill. There should be some acknowledgement that, in some circumstances, that linkage could be incredibly important. I would like to
think that that was possible. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to think about that again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 187A:
- Page 31, leave out line 27.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 196A, 209A, 209B and 217A.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has said some of what I want to say on the amendment, but I shall say it just the same. My concern is—I am sorry to be prescriptive—about the provision in sub-paragraph (b), which refers to,
- "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
My concerns are as follows. The Bill is rightly designed to involve the community in the whole process of dealing with juvenile delinquency. However, in the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, where the community is dominated by the paramilitaries, the Secretary of State and, still more, his successors—the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—might have a very strong and entirely reasonable political wish to advance the peace process by associating paramilitaries with the administration of law and order and the affairs of the community. That would be done on the principle of poachers turning gamekeepers.
Sinn Fein/IRA and the UVF, for instance, have not been brought up in that tradition. However, that will not prevent Sinn Fein/IRA from using that as an argument for "rehabilitating" violent men and,
- "involving them in the peace process".
They have not been slow to present themselves, for instance, as those who are policing drug-takers and expelling families—exiling them to the mainland—on the grounds of involvement with crime of some sort. They are the law and people do not dare to apply to the police. The Government are beginning to recognise that. I therefore strongly urge the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the sweeping and necessarily undefined power of nomination and to define the third post as being open to, for instance, any candidate with recognised and current professional qualifications and experience in working with children. There will be
teachers, I am sorry to say—I support the Liberal Democrats in that regard—doctors and other professionals who could still fill the bill.It is extremely important that a system that is designed to protect the public by preventing offending by children should not be hijacked by the Mafia dons of the IRA and the UVF, or discredited by association in the eyes of ordinary men and women with such people. As we shall see later in the Bill, when we come to the community safety strategy, it could give them yet more power to influence and dominate the lives of citizens. It would be an irony indeed if the very men who terrorise the young, train them to make firebombs and instil hatred in them were given the status to make decisions as the Secretary of State's nominee or that of the First or Deputy First Minister.
I realise that that is prescriptive but I beg that some kind of safeguard should be placed in the clause to ensure that what I have suggested could not happen. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in what she has cautioned. I hope that all Members of the Committee have taken note of the most appropriate warning at this particular stage. Professionally trained probation officers are involved in cases in which children are involved in crime and professionally trained social workers are also involved. However, there is another stratum in our society—its members are loosely known as "welfare workers". Some might say that they are professionally trained, mostly in Long Kesh or Maghaberry. I have to admit that some of those people come out, having spent a period in prison, and want to contribute something back to society. Many of them still remain part of paramilitary organisations and are the "acceptable face"—I emphasise the inverted commas—of those paramilitary organisations.
None of us can believe that the Secretary of State will be the person who has his finger on the pulse and who will decide whether this other person should be designated to have a part to play. That would be delegated through the system, so that one merely has to establish a precedent by which those "welfare workers"—again, I emphasise the inverted commas—are involved in a case. Their power and influence may be so great as to intimidate—to overwhelm—the influence of the social worker: the professionally qualified person who really does have the child's interest at heart.
There are many examples. I have been involved in trying to understand what is meant by the term "restorative justice" in Northern Ireland. It is a very fine term and what is intended could no doubt be worth while. However, in relation to the outworkings of that and in a society such as ours—a society that will have to endure many more years of transition until we become normal in general terms—we cannot allow anything to infiltrate the justice system. I respectfully caution the Minister to take on board the amendment
so as to ensure that we do not undermine the opportunity for children who commit crimes to be properly absorbed back into society. Conversely, a situation could be created where they are more likely to be absorbed into and brought under the influence of paramilitary organisations.
Lord Laird: I too support the amendment. Two Members of the Committee have explained the reasons behind it. In my view, the thrust of Paragraph 4 is extremely good, with one or two amendments. I like the concept. I have talked with other noble Lords to learn how this kind of justice operates in the London area and I am quite satisfied with it. However, there is one major proviso: we must not allow this to become entangled in the web of paramilitarism referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. We must keep it away from the troubles of Northern Ireland and from the difficulties of the paramilitaries and their concept of justice.
The problem is that, without the amendment, the provision will let in a little chink of light from the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the experience of some of the actions of certain Secretaries of State has revealed that they were not as pure as they could have been. I say that although I am acutely aware that one or two former Secretaries of State are serving on this Committee. Obviously I do not suggest in any way that they were involved in difficult decisions.
When I think of some of the political decisions that have been taken recently, we cannot be sure that things are what they are and, conversely, things are not what they are not. I am keen to support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I have a high regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Nevertheless, as I listened to her words it seemed that she was slightly overstating her argument. She appeared to imply that the whole of Northern Ireland is totally dominated by paramilitaries. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will know of many areas that are not so dominated.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked what community restorative justice might be understood to mean. If it is of any help to the noble Lord, I should like to give my version. Community restorative justice is a process that puts the victim, as far as possible, back into the position in which he or she was before the offence took place. Furthermore, if the process is successful, it does away with the enmity and resentment that are likely to have arisen between the offender and the victim.
The concept and the practice of community restorative practice have now been tested in many countries around the world, including here in England. In so far as the reparation orders prescribed in the Bill will work, they are to be supplemented by local community restorative justice. That will tend to reduce the number and severity of interventions by paramilitary groups, many of whom I know to be very
reluctant to carry out summary justice. However, they have been pressurised into doing so by the numerous complaints from neighbours and local residents.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make two points in response to the noble Lord? First, a great deal of the crime that we are considering is likely to be urban; the experience of Belfast is not unrelated to the issue. Of course I accept that the situation is not the same all over Northern Ireland and I am glad that it is not. However, it obtains in enough of Northern Ireland to be a very serious problem. My other point is that I find it extraordinarily difficult to feel sympathy for these unfortunate, delicate paramilitaries, who feel obliged to administer summary justice when we have a perfectly good police force which they refuse to allow to administer that justice.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page