| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, briefly I too should like to speak on Clause 71 and oppose its removal from the Bill. Though I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough this afternoon, I disagree with him about the need to take out this clause, not least because it is extremely flexible, on any reading.
The power in the clause can be exercised only after discussion with the Executive and the best way forward determined. It also recognises that bodies like the police could and should be involved in the local community safety partnerships and the Secretary of State is given the right in subsection (3) to specify, by order, who the membership of those bodies should be. So here is the opportunity to involve the police and I am certain that, given the experience of the Mersey partnership—referred to several times this evening—that is the way to do it.
Five years ago, when I had the honour to become a Member of your Lordships' House, I made my maiden speech on the subject of punishment beatings and the continued anarchy that reigned in many parts of Northern Ireland. Even to this day we know that there are people from both sides of the divide who have no respect for the law, who are not working with the police to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and who ride roughshod over the wishes of the people in the community. But any of us who travel in Northern Ireland and meet people from both sides of the divide know that there is a common wish to see law and order established; the removal of the no-go areas; the drug barons dealt with; and an end to the kind of tensions there have been, especially involving youth crime. I am certain that the tools of local community and safety partnerships are a useful part of the armoury in dealing with those issues.
Noble Lords today have warned about the dangers of unrest during this month and in the month that will follow in various parts of Northern Ireland. I understand in the context of the earlier debate on flags and symbols that in some parts of Northern Ireland the Palestinian flag is being flown in the nationalist communities and the Israeli flag in the unionist community, entrenching even further division. That is not a good example on which to build if we want hope for Northern Ireland. This enabling clause is one way forward. The Government have shown some imagination in the way they have drafted this Bill. It will be a great tragedy now to remove this clause.
Though I recognise the arguments about creating too many quangos and appointed bodies, the Secretary of State has the power in this clause to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication and replication. I am sure that he will take into account the need to have clear lines established, with authority given to perhaps just one body dealing with those issues. I hope that that will be vested in something like a local community and safety partnership rather than just a policing partnership.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I rise simply to say that we are privileged to have heard the views of two distinguished members of the Policing Board, who have expressed to your Lordships not just their own views but the views of all the parties across the board who serve on the Policing Board. With respect I say that your Lordships, and the Government would be unwise to disregard those views.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, when I first came to this Bill, I felt that Clause 71 should not be part of it. I did not feel it was a part of the total judicial process. As the Bill has progressed I have changed my opinion.
I agree, and am delighted to do so, with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. On the other hand, what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, had to say was both extremely interesting and worrying. On this side of the House we have been seriously concerned about the DPPs per se; about the potential conflicts of interest and over-bureaucratic management in such a small community and in particular—small items but they will be important at the time—the time that the police force will have to give to servicing those different groups when they could probably be spending their time in a more worthwhile way.
Without making a long speech I simply say that, on this side of the Chamber, we do not believe it is right to attempt to remove Clause 71 tonight. But we shall continue to chase the Government to tidy up their act in regard to the relationships between district policing partnerships, local authorities, community safety partnerships and so forth. There are too many local authorities—we hope Stormont will tackle that. As a result of there being too many local authorities there will be too many DPPs; as a result of that there will also be too many community and safety partnerships. In general, too much money will be wasted and there will be too many people going round in circles to
achieve what we all want to see achieved; that is, a clearing of the decks and a clear strategy for improving community safety in Northern Ireland involving the people of all communities.It is with regret that I say to noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber that we will not be supporting the removal of Clause 71.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, before the Lord Privy Seal rises to respond, I must indicate that such is my concern—I hope I spelt it out in general terms earlier in previous amendments; my noble friend Lord Brookeborough spelt it out in detail—that I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal in terms of his response that he does not, as he did with me on the last group of amendments, ridicule by implication what has been said here this evening.
The Lord Privy Seal suggested that, by asking that the chairmanship should be vested in district councils, I was somehow promoting Sinn Fein, which may well have chairmen on some district councils. But the Lord Privy Seal well knows that there are members of Sinn Fein in many organisations. I sought to have district councils in the forefront because, irrespective of who may be the chairman or who may be in control, they are open to public accountability and to public scrutiny in a way that statutory bodies cannot be without further huge costs to the Exchequer and individual departments.
The Lord Privy Seal did not address the issues that were raised in relation to the precipitate way in which things were being put into place before there were any fundamental ground rules. I hope that on this occasion he will take the opportunity to enlarge on some of the points he may have missed earlier in the evening.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and my noble kinsman the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on the details of Clause 71. I much admire the calm and good sense of the Minister in continuously bringing us back to the text of the Bill and its relationship to the amendments. One of the problems which those noble Lords trying to deal with this Bill have is that we are dealing with a real-time process on the Government's side which is operating in parallel to the examination and scrutiny of the Bill.
Perhaps I may give a tiny example in order to make the point. On Monday, the noble and learned Lord the Minister resented the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the Government's conduct was tardy in an area of the consultative process relating to a particular list of organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Browne—whom I greatly admire—said on 5th September in Committee in the other place that he hoped he would be able to complete the process that we are discussing by Report in the House of Lords. We now know from the noble and learned Lord's statement on Monday on Report that Mr Browne did not actually write until 28th February to consult the bodies involved in the exercise. That was only six days before the Report stage in the Commons. I realise that
that was not necessarily tardiness, but inevitably the two processes are not proceeding at the same pace. That places us all in some difficulty.In this instance the consultative document was not sent out until the middle of April, which is a full six weeks after the Bill had its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Just as we are doing our best to sympathise with the noble and learned Lord the Minister, I hope that he will have some sympathy with our difficulty in following the detail of the Bill.
The Minister perfectly properly picked up my noble friend Lady Park on the definition of OTRs and the difficulty of putting such individuals in the Bill. We have a similar difficulty in terms of how the detail will work when the process is going on in parallel and, if anything, a little behind the progress of the Bill.
When the Secretary of State published his foreword to the consultative document he said:
- "I am pleased to present this consultation paper setting out our ideas on a new inclusive partnership approach to creating a safer Northern Ireland.
- The development of this strategy was one of the key recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review".
I confess that I am not wholly clear where the Government are going, or even the Government know where they are going. If one does not know where one is trying to get to, any road will get one there.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page