| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for those explanations and detailed responses. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 242:
- Page 61, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 242 follows on from the debate that we have just had. The provision includes a requirement to publish a report on local community safety partnerships but it uses the word "may". It seems entirely appropriate, when new structures and organisations such as these are set up—I take what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said at face value—that we should be optimistic. We hope they will work but there will be hiccups. My amendment is appropriate. The provision should use the word "shall"—that provision should be forced on the partnership to deliver a report. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has concisely pointed out, this amendment, if accepted, would make the publications of all local community safety partnerships obligatory, not discretionary. We believe that those partnerships should operate in as open and transparent a manner as possible. The noble Lord's amendment improves that prospect and I happy to say that, at the appropriate time, I shall accept it.
Lord Glentoran: I wondered whether that day would come on this Bill! I thank the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure of the technicalities—this is a novel experience. I am instructed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that the amendment can be agreed to now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 244:
- Page 61, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: Once again I criticise the extraordinarily wide powers that subsection (8) allows the Secretary of State. It allows the Secretary of State to specify bodies which must co-operate with the partnerships. Unless the Minister has already given us this information, which may be the case—if so, I apologise—my question is: what kind of bodies might the Secretary of State wish to specify? I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy. The answer is essentially what I indicated earlier. Because of the review of public
administration, most people engaged in the review have come to the view that there are likely to be significantly different structures and potentially different changes of responsibility. All that is wished is that the flexibility should be allowed to the Secretary of State to add new functions and partners as appropriate, as issues develop.There is the more fundamental question, of course, which is that as the partnerships develop and grow in confidence, it may be necessary to alter them simply to make them better. That is the flexibility that the Secretary of State is looking for. I have to say that the subcommittee of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had no difficulty with this.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We had looked at the report before we came to Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 246:
- Page 62, line 3, at end insert "and Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 246 seems very appropriate to me in the context of subsection (8). Subsection (10) states:
- "The Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister before making an order under this section".
It seems equally appropriate that, as well as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, he should also consult the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That would be logical and tie in—it is about safety. Policing and security clearly have a major role to play, particularly because paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (8) give quite a lot of scope. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I support the amendment. It is an excellent suggestion about the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and having someone who has an objective oversight of the entire Province. They should have the role that is envisaged in this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I see the superficial attraction of this amendment. I do not mean that to be in any way disagreeable.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in a different category. Plainly it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to discuss all the partners in community safety partnerships, and obviously the Chief Constable would be included in any consultation. He would not be singled out but would be one of the persons and organisations consulted in any event. I suggest that it is invidious simply to mention him rather than any one else.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: Clause 70(4)(b) says that before devising or making alterations to a strategy, the Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and then the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If the Chief Constable is to be involved in devising the strategy, I would have thought that there was merit in getting him involved, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, under Clause 71(10).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The difference is that Clause 70 deals with community safety strategy. Clause 71 deals with partnerships and their operation. Since the partnerships will contain many organisations, subsection (10) says that before the Secretary of State makes an order under Clause 71—not a decision under Clause 70—he has to consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, in the nature of things, any order that he makes under Clause 71 must inevitably affect the community safety partnerships. Therefore they would need to be consulted, as would the Chief Constable. My proposition is that it is unwise simply to select one consultee in Clause 71, where there are many potential consultees who ought to have their views addressed.
Baroness O'Cathain: To pursue the point for 30 seconds more, the community safety partnerships are the tactical end of the community safety strategy. I would have thought that the person who devised the strategy, along with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, should also be involved under Clause 71(10).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: He would be involved, but there is no necessity to specify him.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 71 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Glentoran: While we have heard some detailed explanations as to why Clause 71 should stand part of the Bill, there are a number of areas where the Government have not satisfied the Committee. These concern security, the amount of administration involved, the way in which the DPPs are to be tied into it and the total strategy into which it will fit. In particular the intervention by my noble friend Lord Brooke needs to be answered in more detail. It is therefore likely that we shall oppose Clause 71 on Report.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble and learned Lord properly reprimanded me, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I appear to be in good company. It was based on a misunderstanding
into which I was inadvertently led by another Member of the Committee. I apologise for having taken it in the wrong place.I have a question, the answer to which I am happy to delay until Report. The implementation plan dealing with recommendation 196 of the criminal justice review is marked for further consideration with the NIO in the lead. Reading the remarks on Second Reading in the Commons, the remarks in the implementation plan and the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee in the House of Commons, it is not absolutely clear whether the Government have rejected for all time the bringing together of these two bodies at some stage in the future when they introduce primary legislation. Just as the noble Baroness drew our attention to the fact that it would be possible in the future to do something that is not prohibited in the Bill, I would be interested to know whether the Government have for all time ruled out that possibility on the wording of Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, or whether it is a subject on which they retain an open mind as the words "for further consideration" seem to imply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful for the courtesy of the noble Lord. I shall draw together all the references which he kindly gave and write to him sooner rather than later, if that is acceptable.
Clause 79 [Powers and duties of court security officers]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page