Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully respect where the noble Lord is coming from, as the author of the legislation, but this is not a case of maladministration. Clearly, there have been unacceptable delays, but the delays were known about and not easily avoided. There were resources to establish a link between the national DNA database and the criminal records on the police national computer and a freeze on all new applications to allow an essential upgrade of the police national computer. There were delays in the early part of the period that the noble Lord is talking about, which we fully accept. The scheme did not go full speed ahead, but the Government are fully committed to meeting the obligations under Section 39.
A database on its own is of not much business benefit to the police. It has to work. It was set up and operational this summer and was piloted. Two key problems were discovered during the piloting. First, the system was unable to print the certificates, which I understand has mainly been dealt with now. Secondly, the system was running incredibly slowly; much too slowly for the police operational services. Those matters are being dealt with.
By the way, I am quite happyI am sure that such a thing has happened in the pastto invite the noble Lord to go to the Police Information Technology Organisation for a full update briefing, which it would be more than happy to provide. We are determined to get a full roll-out of this programme.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is accusing the Government of maladministration; he is accusing the Home Office of dumb insolence. The reply to his Question may have been justifiable in 1998 or 1999, but it is totally unacceptable to Parliament seven years after the passage of the Act. The Minister has promised us action next year. I can assure him that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will return to the charge and he will have full support. The Minister had better tell his officials that it is an insult to Parliament to ignore an instruction, which the Home Office resisted at the time and many people suspect is still resisting.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, when I was a daytime Home Office Minister, I was being chased in the House by the noble Lord on this issue, so I am fully aware of the background. I fully accept that action did not initially proceed with all speed. The Home Office
4 Nov 2004 : Column 427
found that there were other issues that needed resources. I freely admit that. On the other hand, the system was set to go live after piloting in September this yearthe September just goneso there is no delay. We want to get it running, but during the pilot there were a couple of issues that caused real problems. We could set a date, but unfortunately I do not have one at the moment. The roll-out will be early next year. However, there is not any undue delay on this. Activity is going on to get this system up and running. Notwithstanding that, it is true that for the first two or three years there was less than full-hearted full steam ahead on the issue.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it was not just at the beginning that there were delays. Ministers have, on 18 separate occasions over the past six years, given the kind of undertakings to the House that the Minister is now giving. A lot of them have been given in recent years. Does not the Minister feel a sense of shame and humiliation on behalf of Ministers that they are unable to deliver the promises that they give to this House, and that such a codswallop has been made of this project that they cannot even meet their legal obligations?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if what has just been said was true, the answer would be "yes"but it is not. No Minister has come to this House over the years and said, "We have got the system up and ready to run". We are ready to press the button, but we needed to do a pilot study to ensure that the system workedand we did that. The pilot identified a couple of key issues, as I have told the House, which are being dealt with at the present time. No Minister has got that far or that close to delivery.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will of course recognise that it is wholly exceptional for there to be a delay of seven years in implementing a decision of Parliament. Is not the explanation that, not liking the proposal, the Home Office decided to set about the task in its own time and its own way? That is the whole trouble. Would not it have been better, if the Home Office had reservations about the proposal, to have been frank about it, come back to Parliament and, if necessary, produced amending legislation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I was not here of course when the legislation went through, but the House did not see fit to put a time scale on it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, hang on a minute. Let us be clear about this. We are determined to implement the legislation, and there is no bad faith in that. But other issuesand I have indicated two or three of themtook precedence for of Home Office resources in the early years. There is no secret about that.
4 Nov 2004 : Column 428
The fact is that this system will be rolled out next year. It has got as far as the piloting, the issues discovered in the piloting are being corrected, and we will have the system rolled out. I just hope that I am around to be able to announce it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the trouble is not with licensed firearms but with unlicensed firearms? The register is essential for the police throughout the country in combating the dangers of unlicensed firearms.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but this system will not register unlicensed firearms.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is time to move on to the next Question.
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide new funding to safeguard the waterways museums at Ellesmere Port, Gloucester Docks and Stoke Bruerne.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, alas, no. We are supporting the development of museums across the country through the Renaissance in the Regions programme. We have limited resources, and DCMS is unable to offer the sort of long-term funding that the Waterways Trust is looking for. We have, however, approached the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and asked it to take on a brokerage role for the Waterways Trust in an effort to help it to widen the funding resources available to it.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, I wonder whether he would acknowledge the sharp fall of 11 per cent in visitor numbers in these museums following the introduction of the otherwise very welcome policy of free access to national museums, including those in Wales and Merseyside. That came after a period of a 24 per cent rise in visitor numbers. Therefore, the £1 million is needed to make up the shortfall in income; for the conservation required, on which there is a huge backlog; and, finally, for the cataloguing of the hugely important archival material which these museums retain, which retell the story of the industrial revolution. There is much technological innovation to be found in those museums.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not dispute the attendance figures which the noble Lord quotes. It is certainly the case that the number of visitors to the waterways museums have fallen. But it is not right to claim that that is a result of the free
4 Nov 2004 : Column 429
admission to national museums policy. Only one of the three waterways museumsthat at Ellesmere Portis close to any national museum. I suppose that one could just about say, with a bit of exaggeration, that the Gloucester Docks were close to museums in Wales, but I doubt whether the visitor base is the same.
On the other hand, the noble Lord makes a valuable point about the conservation aspect. We have contributed more than £300,000 over the past five years to the waterways museums as designated collections.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that for the principle of free admission to work properly, there needs to be a much closer relationship between government funding and actual visitor figures, rather than forecast visitor figures? It is a case, if I may suggest, of the Government needing to do some fine tuning. Unless that happens, one will get a shortage of funding, which will result in suffering among museums such as those in the noble Lord's Question. That will mean that collections will suffer and will result in visitor figures in free fall.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |