---

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support the amendment strongly and think that police officers

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH149

must be consulted. It is relatively easy to say that people who have been convicted and been put in prison are not eligible; it would be surprising if anyone thought that they were. There will be a certain number of paramilitaries known in the community to be men of violence who beat people, exile people and even arrange to shoot people, but they may not have been arrested or convicted because no one has dared to testify, leaving the police powerless. Therefore, it is extremely important that there should be a long stop, a way of dealing with a situation in which a youth conference organiser might, in perfectly good faith, wish to appoint or include in the operation somebody who falls into that category.

Lord Glentoran: I shall add one more thing to save time. The noble and learned Lord will not have missed the point of the wording in Amendment No. 219:

"who have not been convicted of an offence under Schedule 1 . . . or are, in the opinion of a police superintendent or higher ranking officer, a member of a proscribed organisation."

I am sure that he will remember that those are almost the exact words used in the Terrorism Act 2000, the legislation enacted after Omagh, to allow superintendents to give evidence. It is true that a person cannot be convicted on that evidence solely, but it states quite clearly in the Act that such evidence is admissible.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right on that last point. He has reminded us that the 1996 Act has been repealed, but that the provision is the same in the Terrorism Act 2000.

Perhaps I may turn to the Bill itself. Earlier we held discussions on this topic and clearly it is a matter of great concern. On page 44 of the Bill, subsection (8) states that:

"A youth conference co-ordinator may allow other persons—

(a) to participate in any meeting constituting, or forming part of, a youth conference; or

(b) to attend any such meeting for any purpose specified by him"—

and then these important words—

"if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".

When the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, intervened a little earlier, we discussed the question of who may become a youth conference co-ordinator. It will be an independent professional of high quality. Co-ordinators will not be given authority in that position without being possessed of those qualities.

I know the limitations of rhetorical questions, but if such a person, a youth conference co-ordinator, came to the conclusion that the participation of an individual for the whole of the meeting or part of the meeting, or attendance for a particular purpose for part of the meeting, would be of value, would it not be inappropriate, first, to give the police an absolute veto? Secondly, would it not be inappropriate absolutely to disqualify anyone from attendance and participation for part of the meeting, for any purpose specified by the youth co-ordinator, if that independent professional—plainly someone of quality

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH150

and judgment—has come to the conclusion that such attendance might be of value? I suggest that that would be an unwise step.

I should like to develop my theme. A unifying factor throughout our discussion of Part 4 of this Bill has been that everyone wants to make it work. Warm tributes have been made to the success, for example, of the North London schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has visited, as have other Members of the Committee, as well as the Thames Valley scheme which has also been so successful.

What would be brought about by Amendment No. 218 is that the police officer, who has a part to play, is to be given an absolute veto over the co-ordinator. That cannot be right. The police officer is extremely important, but he will not necessarily have the qualifications and the apparent independence of judgment in all circumstances to be able to override the attendance of a particular individual.

I am not sure whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wishes to bring about, but it would be very remarkable and rather alarming to give the police officer the veto. I know what the noble Lord is aiming for, but to give a police officer a veto in these delicate circumstances would be wrong.

Perhaps the important meat of this resides in the linked amendments to which I also now refer. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he wanted to avoid the tainting of the procedures by those who were themselves polluted or tainted—I think I have paraphrased his remarks fairly. I take that point, but my counterpoint goes back to what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.

In his experience—which I humbly accept is greater than mine—there are some who have committed gross crimes, but who have redeemed themselves in so far as any human being can, and have been able to offer some kind of restoration—not to their immediate victims and not to their connected victims, but to the community that they have wounded and disgraced. Is it wise to obliterate their possible contribution in every conceivable circumstance although the co-ordinator—I know that I am repeating myself—who must be a person of quality, experience, expertise and judgment thought that there might perhaps be value for a young offender?

If young offenders are not stopped, none of us needs the gift of prophecy to know that they will continue to repeat their offences until they start to stop in their late forties for various reasons, which may perhaps concern the passage of time and not the fact that they have truly repented. Early intervention is critical. This is a sensitive device and I understand the situation absolutely. However (in some ways I am reluctant to say these words because I do not have the bitter experience of many in this Room) is it wise to put an absolute bar or veto in the hands of a police officer, whatever the rank—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the rank may be of senior status—and whatever the benefit that that might bring to the child in question?

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH151

I go back to the question: where are the child's interests to be? That was raised in the discussion involving the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Shutt. We disagreed about the paramount interests of the child in a criminal context, although that may be appropriate in the civil context. However, if real value is possible or seriously likely in the judgment of the co-ordinator, should the veto be given? I suggest, although I know that Members of the Committee will not necessarily find this argument persuasive, that that is not the right thing to do.

6 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are told that the youth co-ordinators will be drawn from the Civil Service of the mainland or the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, and I entirely accept his point that any member of those services should be, and would be, someone of quality and probity. However, those from the mainland will know nothing about the personalities in Northern Ireland. All that we are saying is that they need that information. The police are in a position to give it and they are probably the only people who would dare to give it. They also know that none of the people who have suffered at the hands of Mr X—who has been arranging for boys to have their arms and legs broken and who has been doing 100 things that hurt the community—dares go to the police. Therefore, the co-ordinator might appoint somebody in good faith who appears to be, in every other respect, a worthy representative of the community and someone who could usefully and in any other place and in any other circumstances, be well associated.

However, the young boy—the offender—knows as well as anybody the people who are the villains in his community. He might be considerably taken aback to find himself confronted by someone who has almost certainly never been to prison but is well known as a villain. Therefore, it is a waste to have a police officer associated with this arrangement, as he should be, and not to use the knowledge that the excellent but ignorant civil servant will not have.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness has been guilty, for the first time in my experience, of imprecision. She said—I wrote this down, so it must be true—"the civil servants, admirable though ignorant, need to know; that is all we are saying". She used those words. That is not what the amendment says, however. It would give an absolute veto to a police officer.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I was assuming, naturally, that any normal person faced with the evidence that a police officer would give, would withdraw the idea. It comes to the same thing.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, it does not. The amendment would insert after "may",

"subject to the agreement of the police officer participating".

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH152

There is no inhibition on any youth co-ordinator, if he or she feels that their experience is entirely based on England and Wales, making an inquiry. All that we are saying is that they ought to know. There is no difficulty at all about making an inquiry; they can do that if they wish to. I suggest, however, that it is objectionable that the police officer should have an absolute veto or that past history should have an absolute veto.

I shall stress it again: the youth conference co-ordinator may allow the participation or attendance for any purpose specified of any person,

"if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".

That is the only point that I seek to make. It is unwise to allow either a police officer or, as I said, the constraints of history—from which, we know, Northern Ireland has suffered rather too much—to have a veto.

---