---

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intends with Amendment No. 87, I doubt he is other than optimistic in proposing it. Not setting up or

4 Jul 2002 : Column 397

establishing local community safety partnerships until such times as the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance is no guarantee that safeguards will be forthcoming. When we move to the next group of amendments I shall illustrate the futility of depending on any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the Northern Ireland Office, for practical guidance.

Although I support, in principle, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I believe this amendment will not achieve his proposals.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I understand the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has served a purpose in highlighting the problem. Speaking to people who will be involved in those partnerships, it is apparent that there is a need for real clarity before we go too far down that road. It is important that the partnerships start on a firm footing, with no confusion over exactly what their role will be, and before we think about nominations.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. I, too, support my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, implied that it was impossible for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever to come forward with a practical solution to one of the problems of the Province. We Secretaries of State must stick together. I must dissent from him in that. I shall not rehearse again the 29 months since the Secretary of State made a preliminary Statement in January 2000 about these matters. An enormous amount of printer's ink has been spilt on those issues in the ensuing 29 months.

If anyone has taken the trouble to read through all that has been said, there is some lack of clarity—partly because of changes in policy direction during the 29 months. I believe my noble friend has done the House a considerable service by tabling a preliminary and cautionary amendment to ensure that when we move into active mode there will be a hymn sheet from which everyone can sing.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall remind your Lordships that we have made a number of order-making powers in the clause subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, we have further parliamentary scrutiny and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has approved that. A number of voluntary partnerships have already been established in district council areas. More partnerships are being developed by the statutory organisations.

Certain guidelines have already been issued and are in place—for instance, how to perform a community audit. Others will be produced as needs are identified—for example, the steps to go through in setting up a partnership. Guidelines are a source of

4 Jul 2002 : Column 398

advice, but they are not compulsory. That is going to develop incrementally. The amendment would delay progress without any ascertainable benefit.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I believe that he understands the point I am trying to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 87ZA:

Page 61, line 15, leave out from "State" to "a" in line 16 and insert "within each district council area establish"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is important to give some background on how local community safety partnerships have developed. The process has been without order or logic. To some extent, what we are doing today is belated and out of time.

The consultative document, which I hold in my hand, was produced on 16th April this year. I shall not go through it in detail. Despite that document arriving on our desks only on or after that date, one month later—on 17th May—a letter from the Northern Ireland Office was delivered to district councils, stating the Government's intention to encourage the formation of local community safety partnerships. The letter advised district councils of the availability of funding for the post of community safety co-ordinators for the local partnerships. It went on:

"We are taking this step in advance of the completion of the consultation on the strategy because we have been asked by a number of existing and prospective partnerships to make it available now".

I ask your Lordships to ponder on that sequence of events and on that letter, which shows that whatever bona fide consultees may have contributed and irrespective of what may be decided in your Lordships' House and in another place, decisions have already been implemented. The letter that I have in my hand goes on to say that £30,000 is immediately available towards administrative support and to the post of community safety co-ordinator for local partnerships.

Your Lordships will understand if I, as a borough councillor and as a Member of your Lordships' House, begin to wonder what my role and that of your Lordships is. I have no indication of which existing or prospective people have been so pressuring the Government that money is already being thrown at district councils.

After Grand Committee, I went to a meeting to be addressed by some of those responsible for explaining the role of community safety partnerships. After I had heard some detail, I pointed out that we were creating but another talking shop. Northern Ireland already has more than 600 councillors, 108 Members of the Assembly, 18 Members of Parliament and three MEPs, not to mention those from Northern Ireland who sit in your Lordships' House or the innumerable multitude of quangos, committees, sub-committees and amalgams of committees.

4 Jul 2002 : Column 399

It is only fair that your Lordships understand that we are being told that these groups coming together will have funds and will contribute funds to make something positive happen for community safety. I asked officers of the housing executive and found that they have no money. They have less money for ordinary maintenance this year than they had last year. When I asked any of the statutory bodies that have been mentioned about providing money to local community safety partnerships, they said that maybe the Government would give them money. Bluntly, a lot of them are going to be there, simply because they think that more money might be thrown at the problem. We do not know.

We do not even know what role in society the local community safety partnerships may have. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was good enough to write to us on 20th June, sending us a briefing paper prepared by the Northern Ireland Office on community safety and community safety partnerships. Paragraph 11 of that paper said that the functions of community safety partnerships and district policing partnerships are very different. It went on to say that the district policing partnerships,

"are established as an accountability body for the police at local level".

Section 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 contains no provision to delegate accountability—I emphasise that word—for police at local level to DPPs.

It is worth pondering Section 16 of that Act a little further. It lists the functions of a district policing partnership. I shall not bore the House with that information in detail—noble Lords can find it themselves—but within the functions of district policing partnerships are the same duties as are now being delegated to community safety partnerships. The two lists are not identical in every detail, but there are many similarities. For example, district policing partnerships have to make arrangements,

"to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the district".

That duty is being imposed on community safety partnerships. Section 16(1)(e) of that Act says that a DPP can make arrangements for obtaining various things and,

"such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".

So we did not have to have duplication; I draw that firmly to the attention of noble Lords.

I must enter a caveat at this stage. I do not want it to be interpreted that somehow I am against community safety endeavours, just as it was somehow interpreted earlier—I was about to intervene—that because I have certain opinions about symbols, I do not know how to compromise with those who differ from me. I do not want to digress, but I thought that in that regard it was fully understood that the compromise was the Belfast agreement 1998 and that whatever happened should happen within the context of that agreement and should not be outside it, embellishing it or eroding it.

4 Jul 2002 : Column 400

I return to community safety partnerships. There was a meeting yesterday, I am led to believe, of the Policing Board, at which the SDLP, the DUP, Ulster Unionists and independents joined together to say that they did not want community safety partnerships. That conveys the difficulty—the conflict—that many of us have to face up to. Do we take the adamant view that we do not want community safety partnerships because they duplicate the responsibilities that are already vested in the DPPs—they divert essential members of other statutory bodies away from the work that they know and do best—or do I try to seek some sort of compromise, so that we give some sort of acquiescence to community safety partnerships but ensure that those community safety partnerships work under and are subordinate to DPPs?

There are other considerations in this regard. The areas of responsibility of DPPs are coterminous with district council areas. The local police areas of command are coterminous—

---