| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: From what has already been said on this clause, there may well be a case for bringing together policing partnerships and safety partnerships, or even possibly going as far as merging them. I do not want to prejudge that issue.
In some ways Northern Ireland is an almost ideal place to work at crime prevention. By crime prevention I mean normal crime, not paramilitary crime, and associated anti-social behaviour. Yesterday I referred to my interest in NIACRO. We have done a great deal of work so far experimenting with local community groups directed towards preventing crime ever starting. This kind of work can begin with something as simple as a playgroup. It continues through something else that I have already mentioned; that is, truancy from school, suspension and eventually the exclusion of pupils. These are matters in which the local community can be extremely helpful, but it will need to have access to and responses from the statutory authorities. Therefore there is a correlation between local community development and statutory providers. That meshes in very closely with the whole idea and notion of civil society and active citizenship.
Baroness O'Cathain: If the calculations of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, are correct; that 12 people are
required for a population of 60,000, then 320 people will be required to set up safety partnerships for a population of 1.6 million. Will it be possible to secure 320 men and women, good and true, prepared to spend all their time on these safety partnerships? I wonder whether the proposal will be feasible in its present form?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must remind myself that I am replying to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, which is perfectly precise. It states, "leave out subsection (1)". I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I ought to reply to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to which, apart from the noble Lord, no one has spoken. I shall come to the wider issues, which in effect form a discussion on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We may as well have that discussion now as later. However, I ought to pay the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the courtesy of dealing with his amendment.
The purpose of this power is to replicate, for those who live in Northern Ireland, the opportunity of the success—I am grateful for the tributes that have been paid—of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England and Wales. All Clause 71(1) does is allow the Secretary of State to base these partnerships on geographical areas of Northern Ireland. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, were to be carried, the Secretary of State would not have that power.
Being well informed, noble Lords will know that the Northern Ireland Executive has announced a review of public administration. There may well be significant changes made to existing roles and responsibilities, as well as a different structure relating to the delivery of services in Northern Ireland. It may affect the number of district councils. Because of that continuing review, this power is sought in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to take account of any future structural and geographical changes. That is the only point of Clause 71(1).
I think that a certain amount of misapprehension has crept into this debate and possibly multiplied. I should say first to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the partnerships do not relate to several thousand people, but are to be made up of the statutory organisations responsible for the delivery of various different services. So one can cite examples like social services, health, education, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the police, probation and district councils. That is the kind of model that has worked well in England and Wales.
There is no suggestion here that the new bodies will control the police; they will not. Determination about how areas are policed is to be entirely a matter for the police. Because they deliver a public service, they ought to be represented on these partnerships on a statutory basis.
I turn now to one or two further specific replies, in particular in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who asked two questions: community safety for whom and from whom? The concept is this. The safety of communities can be brought about if the organisations work co-operatively, because they have a common purpose, which is the reduction of crime and of the fear of crime. That involves not just criminal behaviour, but also anti-social behaviour, which, in my experience, is often much more distressing that actual crime to people who live in particular areas. They are both important if the duty of a government is to do their best to provide the opportunity for citizens to live peaceful and enjoyable lives in their own homes and communities. We are dealing with anti-social behaviour and with other factors that affect people's perceptions of safety. Very often, people fear crime when it does not affect them, but the fear does.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked about consultations. The whole list is at Annex A in the consultative document, Creating a Safer Northern Ireland through Partnership, which was published in the spring of this year. I do not want to be too lengthy at this time of night, but the list of those consulted in Annex A includes the Belfast Education and Library Board, the Department for Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Extern, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Board, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Probation Board, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, Victim Support, Translink and the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. None of those, I think, could fairly be described as paramilitaries.
That is the sort of consultation that has gone on and the sort of model we hope to bring about—statutory organisations, designated to work in these local organisations. It is true that they will probably be called CSPs or LCSPs. That is the way of the world, I am afraid. At least they are not called KAFKAs, which I think the Lord Chancellor's department introduced in another context, despite my dire warnings that it would be Franz Kafka who would be thought of. However, nobody ever listens, so they have KAFKAs. I am just teasing my noble friend Lady Scotland. That is the purpose of it and I hope I have not been too lengthy in explaining things.
There is no suggestion of going out to find Bill or Ben—or Mrs Bill or Mrs Ben—who may have links with paramilitary organisations. I think that I can say to the unanimous approval of the Committee that these are all reputable organisations that have a vital, central part to play in the delivery of community safety.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 241A:
- Page 61, line 5, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I very much take on board the very mild reprimand from the Lord Privy Seal that I strayed widely off the mark during the debate on the previous amendment. By way of excuse, I was trying to put that in context. He responded to this amendment during his response to the previous one, so he fully understands what I am about to say.
The amendment is designed to draw attention once again to the danger of undesirable people taking control of the local community safety partnerships—an issue that has been debated many times. I need say no more about that, because the Lord Privy Seal has responded on it.
The noble and learned Lord has responded with a great deal of faith and hope rather than with a huge amount of reassurance as far as I am concerned. However, I take his point. I wonder whether he has considered, as he listed the various agencies that would be participating in local community safety partnerships—housing executives and so on—whether greater amounts of money than he envisages might be channelled towards these LCSPs. Has he considered how that money is to be managed, how he is to ensure that it is not there to provide the opportunity for less desirable individuals to set up community safety patrols with people supplying cameras and so on? Those matters concern me—the looseness of the drafting concerns me; hence Amendment No. 241A. I do not need to explain it further. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I have tried to deal with the issue, which I know concerns him. We debated his principled objection at some length yesterday so I shall not weary the Committee, having given the Government's response yesterday, about whether or not paramilitaries, or those who have been convicted of particular offences, should be automatically excluded.
I simply reiterate, first, that I am not sure that that approach is needed. We are talking about organisations in these partnerships, not individuals. Secondly, there is the question of money, which is dealt with on page 61 of the Bill, where subsection (4)(d) allows a local community safety partnership to,
It is true that, in the nature of things, one will either be optimistic—although realistic at the same time—or intensely gloomy. If gloom is to be our only guide, then we are all wasting our time on the Bill. In the nature of things, if we are moving forward, there will be
"( ) A person is disqualified from being a member of a community safety partnership if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not)."
"provide any such financial or other support".
Subsection (9) of the same clause empowers the Secretary of State to "make grants".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page