| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's first question is yes, these are 250 additional police officers and soldiers. I take her ironic—or perhaps not even ironic—comment about Northern Ireland being the most researched community in the world. The Secretary of State has not gone to the trouble of appointing an expert on organised crime or setting out his colours here simply to ignore the matter; he is treating it with great seriousness.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I express my concern for my noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough, and I hope that for family reasons I may be allowed to include the Viscountess in those words. Those of us who put questions to Ministers after Statements sometimes ask for debates and are reasonably diverted to the business managers. Can the Minister give us any encouragement that when we return in October we might have a general stocktaking debate on Northern Ireland to concentrate during the intervening recess the minds of those of us who take these matters seriously?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I will certainly give that suggestion every appropriate consideration and discuss it. I know that the noble Lord will smile with the business managers, but I do not control the business in this House. I will give it every proper consideration.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I endorse my noble friend Lord Brooke's suggestion. Of course one wants to think about the Statement. One point in it gives me particular anxiety; that relating to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General having been
asked to lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and scope for additional criminal offences and to see whether any changes can be made in the criminal law.I understand that when any government comes under the pressure of events, there is a great urge—I would say, temptation—to do something of that character. I offer the thought that it nearly always comes back to haunt you. Things done in a hurry on that basis nearly always turn out to have more disadvantages than advantages. I suggest that what is needed here is not new laws or powers—they have been thought of carefully by successive governments over a long time—but to bring the police up to strength.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot disagree with any of those propositions. The Patten review will be reporting on the progress of the first year. There is the temptation to do things quickly just for the sake of doing things. The noble and learned Lord and I would both recognise the dangerous dogs syndrome. Perhaps I ought not to intrude into recent history. There are nevertheless some aspects that could be looked at quite promptly—for instance, how bail may be working, which it is perfectly helpful and useful to have a Law Officer do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Secretary of State at any stage consider the question of what might be called a payment on account by Sinn Fein/IRA—that is, a commitment to allow the return of the exiled families? I welcome the fact that he is going to shine a light. It is time that it was shone and I am delighted. However, most of the suggestions will not mean anything to the ordinary man and woman on the street in Northern Ireland. They need to be told that something real is going to happen.
My other point is that we are not looking solely at a collection of criminals operating because they want to make money. That applies to either side, loyalist or republican. Certainly, in the case of Sinn Fein/IRA, we are looking at paramilitaries who wish to continue to exert total political power. It is a political issue. Therefore it seems to me vital that the Secretary of State should without delay set in motion some kind of negotiation with Sinn Fein/IRA to require them to turn off the tap, as they were able to do when Clinton came and as they could do again. If they want to show real regret and a real wish to improve matters, let them do that. Let us forget the past and ask them to act on the future.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot dispute what the noble Baroness says. We have discussed it frequently and that is as it should be. There is pressure put on about the return of those who have been driven from their homes. The noble Baroness and I have been in recent correspondence at some length about it. I was not suggesting that some groups are not carrying out criminal activity because they want to fund their political purposes. I am suggesting that there is sometimes a tendency to overlook the fact that some people commit crimes of violence and greed
because they are violent, greedy people and have no connection with politics. One has only to look at the drug-related crimes in Dublin, for instance. I have never heard anyone pretend that they are related to any political activity.Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
5.43 p.m.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 3:
- Page 3, line 25, at end insert "We also recommend that the Procedure Committee should be asked to make recommendations for protecting and promoting the interests of backbench members of the House when proposals are made for the membership of select joint domestic and pre-legislative scrutiny committees of the House."
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. The same subject is covered in the Motion in my name on the Order Paper that comes after we have debated the Procedure Committee report. They are three ways of tackling the same subject. I very much hope that the Leader of the House has a fourth way that we can all agree to.
The usual channels are a wonderful institution. We benefit a great deal from them. They work very hard on our behalf and, in my experience, by and large they achieve an equable and reasonable result. However, as Back-Benchers we must not forget that the usual channels are not us. They have their own agenda. On two or three occasions this week alone, their judgment of what should be done with a particular Motion or amendment has clearly not been the same as that of Back-Benchers.
Most of the time, in the normal operation of the House, that is probably survivable and it is probably a fudge that we can get along with. However, the changes to be brought about by this very desirable report from the Procedure Committee will move it up a notch. Our core business—the consideration of government legislation—will go through a phase in which most Members of this House will not have a right to participate. Only a limited number of Members of this House will be able to participate in a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Even on a committee of this House, only a dozen or so of us will be able to serve. Those Members who have been through that process will be the core of our expertise in later stages of the Bill. They will have done the work and been through the arguments and will have the knowledge.
There must be a temptation for the Government to make sure that those committees are compliant to their wishes. I do not doubt that the same applies to my Front Bench. We have seen that problem arising in another place, where there were famously arguments over the composition of some of their committees, which in their case the Back-Benchers have won and we have reforms to consolidate that.
We do not face the same political edginess in this House, but we are in danger of moving towards it. As Back-Benchers, we must make sure that our mechanisms for appointing Peers to committees that will arise out of the reforms are open to scrutiny and participation.
I have just finished participating in a Select Committee of this House on animal experimentation. I was chosen for it because my noble friend Lord Henley tapped me on the shoulder in the Library one day and said, "I am looking for someone to participate in this. Would you be interested?" That is all very fine and dandy, but how many other Members of this House who might have been interested were offered the chance? There were no committed animal rights activists on that committee. How do we know that there is not someone in this House who has that as a passion? Such a person would have been an appropriate member of the committee and ought to have been offered the opportunity to participate.
It has sort of been an ambition of mine for a long time that I might be a member of the Procedure Committee. After today's debate, perhaps I am losing that ambition. I have never known how to achieve it or how the members of the Procedure Committee are chosen.
We ought to move to greater openness so that we, as Back-Benchers, know what is being done. There will always be the necessary balancing and it is generally for our convenience that that should be done by the usual channels. To try to reduce that to the democracy of the House would be tedious, time-consuming and not necessarily accurate. However, what is done ought to be done openly. My proposal is that we should each have the opportunity to put our names down for committees. In the case of long-running committees we could put our names down to be considered next time a vacancy arises. On ad hoc committees, we should give ourselves a little time in which Members can say that they would like to be considered. Those lists of people who are interested should be open to all of us for inspection so that should the Government do something unthinkable, such as introduce a Bill to lock people up for life merely because psychiatrists think they might commit a crime, even though they have never committed any, there would be a chance for those of us who, perhaps against the wishes of our Front Bench, hold the liberties of the individual above the convenience of the state to be sure that our opinions were represented on that committee. When we came to consider the Motion asking us to agree the committee, we should be able to know whether someone whom the House considered the key expert in the area had put their name forward and been rejected. With that knowledge of the position that had been taken, we would be able to question the usual channels properly.
That is my sole objective in the amendments. I support the reforms, which I hope will go through today, but we should look to their consequences for us as Back-Benchers. We put in a lot of time in this House for the sake of those odd moments of influence on things that we really care about. We ought to find a
way of making sure that, when we really want to do something, we have the chance to participate if at all possible. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |