| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 247:
- Page 65, line 37, at end insert ", or
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment on a point of detail, but it seems to me that court security is vital. Court security in a country riddled by terrorism is even more vital. The court security officer has several powers, including the power to prevent someone from coming into the court, escorting a person out of the court and so on. It seems logical, and it might be necessary, for him also to have the power I suggest in my amendment in order to enable him to carry out the other activities with which he is charged. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that an amendment in the terms he suggests is not necessary. The powers in Clause 79 are based on the powers of equivalent court security officers in England and Wales under Sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which do not contain provision for the power of arrest. We are not aware of any need being demonstrated for this power in England and Wales.
It is of course the case that court security officers have the power of arrest in relation to more serious offences under Article 26 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)— Order 1989. Therefore
It may be helpful if your Lordships were to cast an eye over Clause 79 concerning the extent of powers currently held by court security officers. They may search persons entering a courthouse and they may exclude or remove any person who refuses to permit such a search or who refuses to surrender an article which the court security officer reasonably believes may jeopardise the maintenance of order in the court. Furthermore, they exclude or remove any person from a courthouse, or to restrain any person in the courthouse, where such action is reasonably necessary to maintain order. In addition, court security officers have the power to detain a person misbehaving in court until the court has risen.
Of course it would be our expectation that if the need arose for the police to be called after the court security officer had discharged his extensive duties, then that would occur.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. It is because the security officer has those powers that I felt he also needed the power of arrest. Perhaps I was prompted to seek that power because a friend of mine who is a judge would hope to have—and indeed used to have—a policeman on duty in her court. Today, because of pressure on the police, it is often no longer possible for the police to be present in a court to support the security of the judges and the members of the legal profession who are represented there. If the Bill provided for the security officer to have the power of arrest, that would tidy things up a little. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Reserved matters: new institutions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 248:
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to add the local community safety partnerships to the list of organisations set out in Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The only effect is to make it possible for those partnerships to be devolved along with other criminal justice functions, once a decision has been taken to transfer responsibility for such matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly—and only then. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 249:
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 249, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 250. The amendments derive from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. That committee, to whose work we all pay tribute and careful attention, accepted that 16 powers contained in the Bill to amend this Bill or other legislation were an appropriate delegation. However, the committee said that there ought to be four changes in favour of an affirmative procedure.
The first is the Assembly's power to omit an office from those made subject to the Judicial Appointments Commission under Schedule 1 was of constitutional importance and ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee felt that any order removing an office from those in respect of which the oath must be taken or affirmation made merited similar affirmative procedure. The same applied to orders adding organisations to or omitting them from the list of organisations within the criminal justice inspectorate's remit. Finally, it was felt that affirmative procedure was appropriate for any decision to abolish the Court Service, because Parliament would wish to debate that.
We considered the report carefully, as always. The recommendations are persuasive, and the amendments give effect to those recommendations. I hope that that finds favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sure that the Government's decision will be received with satisfaction. That was a rather gratuitous remark on my part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 250:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 251:
The noble Lord said: I am a little nervous about this amendment at this stage, because it is technical. If I understand it correctly—and I hope that I do—it concerns the commencement of various parts of the Bill, which, as we know, can be brought into operation at different times when the Government think fit. I hope that this allows it to come before the House and to be prayed against and, to some extent, debated. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment would require parliamentary scrutiny of the commencement of every provision in the Bill. That would be very unusual, although that is not necessarily a determinative argument, even in your Lordships' House. However, it would place a wholly disproportionate, unreal burden on Parliament and would delay the process of implementing the review. I pray in aid what I said on the last amendment, which was met with gratuitous acclaim. I am very sad that the former Attorney-General has fallen so much into poverty that he is now driven to making gratuitous remarks. I share his feeling of loss, as neither of us is at the Bar in practice any more.
We looked carefully at the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. The committee said that we had got it wrong in four places, but was perfectly content with the rest. I am happy to follow that advice. The amendment would be exceptionally burdensome and rather counter-productive.
( ) arrest any person in any court-house and must act in accordance with any general or specific instructions which have been given to him (whether orally or in writing) by a person in authority"
Page 67, line 2, at end insert—
"(za) in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
"(h) local community safety partnerships.","
Page 128, line 27, column 2, leave out "89(3), the words "10(4) or"" and insert "89(4), the words "9(4),""
Page 69, line 34, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
"(2) An order containing provision made by virtue of section 2(2)(b) (whether or not together with other provision) shall be subject to affirmative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(4) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33)).
(3) An order containing provision made by virtue of section 2(2)(a) or (c) (whether or not together with other provision) which is not subject to affirmative resolution shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33)).
(4) No order containing (whether or not together with other provision) provision made by virtue of section 9(4), 19(4)(b), 45(6)(a) or (b), 71(1), (3), (7) or (8) or 77 shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) The following instruments—
(a) an order under section 10(4), 12(3), 19(4)(a) or (c), 28(2), 45(6)(c), 62(2), 71(2) or 84(2), Schedule 4 or paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 8, and
(b) a scheme (or alterations to a scheme) under section 67,
shall, unless a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly."
Page 69, line 42, after "84(2)" insert "or 86(1)"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page