At the meeting the other day which my noble friend the Minister helpfully held with Peers to discuss secure colleges, a point was made that officials had seen co-education working well within the secure estate—boys and girls working together on, I think, decoration. That may be. However, the risks posed of occasional but very serious incidents occurring in such circumstances are severe. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Government have taken fully into account the inevitable feelings of intimidation and isolation likely to be felt by a small number of girls in an institution containing a large number of older boys. They will be a tiny minority at best, and the same goes for vulnerable younger boys. Nor should one forget that a large proportion of the girls have been victims of sexual abuse by older men. It is entirely wrong, I suggest, to force through this mixed education experiment. I believe that the experiment itself is unacceptable in this regard.

Places are available in secure children’s homes for this very small group of children. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, speaking for the Opposition, were in rare accord in that both spoke well of secure

22 Oct 2014 : Column 672

children’s homes and of their future. The Government assure us that they intend to keep open secure children’s homes. They are small and provide a nurturing environment. Many provide a highly successful educational content. During the Recess I visited Clayfields House, a secure children’s home in Nottinghamshire. That home has secured a remarkable success with children in avoiding reconviction upon release. At Clayfields they provide not only education, achieving truly remarkable exam results in very short periods of time, but also effective vocational training, arranged by a local private sector employer, in motor mechanics and construction trades. It is a facility shared by the secure children’s home with local schools and others.

I fully appreciate that secure children’s homes are expensive, but we are talking here about housing a very small number of children in an appropriate environment. We are talking about turning around the lives of a group of extremely damaged children. If we do not spend now the resources necessary to ensure that they are held in suitable surroundings and given the opportunities afforded by a period of personal attention and tightly focused education, helping them towards gaining employment later, then we face the far greater financial burden of considerable extra expenditure in the future as they spend their lives in and out of the criminal justice system and dependent on the public purse for social services and welfare benefits.

My second amendment in this group is similar in terms to one that I tabled in Committee, which was kindly mentioned with approval by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment sets out the principles that should underlie the foundation of any secure educational establishment. I say again that we are completely in support of the Government’s intention to introduce more and better education for young offenders in custody. The present educational services in Feltham and other young offender institutions are inadequate and ineffective. The lack of education and training for the world of work is one reason for the appallingly high reoffending rates for young people. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that young offenders who are in custody are, for the most part, deeply troubled young people. Very often, their contact with the education system prior to their being sentenced has been limited at best.

The evidence convinces me that the best way in which to provide education for young offenders and improve their chances of rehabilitation is to provide establishments that are small enough to guarantee individual attention from staff; are easy to visit for their families; are designed to assist rather than impede continuity of supervision following release; and offer education and other facilities that are sufficiently focused and supportive to ensure that the different needs of individual offenders with different problems, and who are sentenced and due to be released at different times, can be suitably met.

In this regard, I have added to my Committee stage amendment the need to ensure adequate mental and physical healthcare facilities for young offenders. The need for such extra attention to these issues has been highlighted by the BMA briefing on its impending report on these issues, and my noble friend Lord Carlile has spoken about that. The BMA points out,

22 Oct 2014 : Column 673

tellingly, that the state takes over responsibility for these offenders precisely at the point when their needs are most acute. The BMA’s support for the principles of these amendments is only one area of support among many. I again ask the Government to reconsider their proposals, to look at the principles advocated by all those who have done years of research upon this subject, to think again about the Glen Parva proposal and to reject the idea that girls and younger males under 15 should be held in detention in that institution.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it seems wiser not to keep girls in this proposed new pathfinder institution, in part because, as I said in Committee, some of them will be pregnant, giving birth or just have given birth. If they are to be housed there in those conditions, the utmost consideration needs to be given to their needs because, as a society, we are becoming increasingly aware that the attachment that a mother makes to an infant is vital to that child’s later life. Indeed, I am sure that it is often because their mothers were in poverty, alcoholic and unable to form a bond with their child that these young women have followed this course in life. Whatever health provision is offered at the institution to these girls—these mothers—their perinatal needs should be considered.

My noble friend makes an extremely important point about access to psychotherapy for staff members. So often that can be seen as a luxury but, given the relationships that members of staff make with these troubled children, such access is the absolute key in getting the best behaviour from them and avoiding the use of force. If staff can build a good relationship with these troubled young people, force will not be necessary and can be avoided. Staff need expert support in thinking about these children and the relationships they form with them. I therefore thoroughly endorse my noble friend’s point.

Finally, the Children’s Commissioner has produced important reports about the sexual exploitation of girls by gangs. Thought needs to be given to the implication for girls who are placed in establishments where large numbers of gang members may be around. I am thinking of the case of a 14 year-old girl who was raped by a gang member, became pregnant and was very concerned to keep her anonymity. It should be possible to keep girls’ anonymity so that a gang member cannot pass information back to another gang member and say, “The girl you knew is now pregnant”, and so on. That can be a difficult scenario.

6.15 pm

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the hour is getting late and I am aware that we are hoping to divide the House on another amendment. I have spoken about the antecedents and health problems related to some of these young people’s behaviour. However, I remind the House that there are big differences between the girls and boys. More than half the girls have witnessed domestic violence, compared to about a quarter of the boys; 35% of the girls have substance-abusing mothers, compared to about 9% of the boys; and 18% of the girls have substance-abusing fathers, compared to 5% of the boys. When you take the very small number of girls who are extremely disturbed into an environment and confine them near a large

22 Oct 2014 : Column 674

number of boys who are also very disturbed, it is almost like putting them in a pressure cooker. I hope that the importance of not having a minority of girls on this site has been taken on board by the Government.

I cannot stress enough the importance of having high-quality clinical staff available, too. This is not just about staffing the posts but having very highly trained people who want to live in that area, be there with a sufficient support infrastructure and have ongoing training and education—as well as succession planning so that one is not left with low staffing levels that could create a crisis.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, most of the arguments about girls on this site have been clearly made, so I want to make a quite different point rather than repeat the ones that have been made.

I have looked carefully at both sets of plans for this site. Were one not to accommodate girls and young boys at the far end of the site, the flexibility one would have—maybe for the pathfinder to succeed—would be far greater than one would have with the complication, described by my colleagues throughout this debate, of confining girls who will be claustrophobic, adding to their difficulties. The young boys will simply learn from being on that site all the bravado that comes with it. If one wanted this proposal to succeed at all, one could instead have more space and better capacity provision. The Minister knows I am not in favour of this proposal but I know that it is the wish of those who have visited some of the other establishments to do something better. As I said, one could do even better by using that part of the site to make sure that the pathfinder succeeds.

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments, which are important, although they focus on two narrow but, I understand, critical aspects of these proposed secure colleges.

Dealing first with girls and those aged under 15, Amendments 109 and 117A seek to exclude girls and under-15s from secure colleges, or to prevent girls being accommodated on the same site as boys. I entirely recognise that there is understandable caution about the risks involved in allowing girls and under-15s to be placed in a new type of secure establishment, where the majority of young people will be boys between the ages of 15 and 17. I also recognise the importance of secure colleges being able to address the particular educational, health and emotional needs of these undoubtedly very vulnerable young people.

Let me assure noble Lords that we have gone to considerable lengths in our designs for the secure college to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable groups could be accommodated in separate small units. As my noble friend Lord Carlile told the House, following a meeting in July we made changes to the plans to enlarge the site by two acres, and to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable people have their own sports and recreational facilities. This is not merely tunnels—as he describes it—but separate facilities and separate access routes to the main education and healthcare building. In this way, it will be possible to

22 Oct 2014 : Column 675

deliver a distinct regime that caters to these more vulnerable boys and girls. In our consultation on our plans, we have also proposed a rule requiring girls to be accommodated separately from boys. I referred to that consultation earlier this afternoon.

However, I should make clear to the House that no final decisions have been taken on who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder. This will be determined in light of the analysis of the make-up of the youth custodial population ahead of the pathfinder opening in 2017. I also gave a commitment in Committee that girls and under-15s will not be placed in the pathfinder from its opening, and that any decision to introduce them would be carefully phased. While I entirely recognise the concerns that lie behind these amendments, I believe that the risks can be sensitively and safely managed. This already happens in secure training centres and secure children’s homes, where boys and girls of different ages are accommodated on the same site.

There have been references to the numbers in the youth custodial estate. I can assist the House by saying that at the moment there are 16 girls in secure children’s homes, and 20 girls in secure training centres. That is a total of 36. There are 25 under-15s in secure children’s homes, and 13 in secure training centres, giving a total of 38. In one of the secure children’s homes there are 24 boys and one girl, so we are not talking about a large number.

We are anxious not to preclude, as a matter of strict law, the possibility of admitting to the secure college girls or those aged under 15. However, the House will know that the Youth Justice Board takes the decisions on where young people who are sentenced or remanded into custody are to be placed. These decisions are taken by specially trained staff and informed by detailed advice from the youth offending teams who have been working with the young people. The Youth Justice Board’s placement decisions are based on the individual needs of a young person. They take into account the whole range of factors that you would expect, such as age, gender, vulnerability, location, offence and any previous history. There is a very nuanced assessment before children are even considered appropriate for the secure college. However, the amendment would absolutely prevent it.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I accept everything he has said about it not being for the Government to determine who goes to which institution. However, surely he can tell us whether he expects or anticipates any girls being sent to this institution.

Lord Faulks: As I said a little earlier, we do not expect this to happen, certainly in the short term. However, we do not want to write into the legislation that it should never happen. This is because, as noble Lords will appreciate, not all 14-year old boys are the same, physically, mentally or in their needs. This is also so with girls. I do not anticipate that this is likely to happen in the short term, but this amendment would completely prevent it happening. Yet there are instances of girls and boys actually deriving benefit from each other’s company.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 676

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I apologise for intervening once more. I promise not to do so again, at least in this speech. Does this mean that, although my noble friend is not able to anticipate whether any girls will be placed in this pathfinder college, nevertheless the Government have decided to build a building to accommodate girls, which may lie empty for the next 25 years?

Lord Faulks: No, the answer is that by their secure college the Government are trying to provide a college which is sufficiently flexible to allow them to cope with whatever the demands are. Of course, it is impossible to predict precisely the age or the gender of those who will find themselves sent to a secure college, or to whatever the appropriate custodial institution may be. The answer is to set up a college which has the provision for a separate accommodation if that is appropriate.

It appears that we are somewhat damned if we do and damned if we do not. We were criticised for not having a separate accommodation for girls and young men, and we are now being criticised for having it and not using it. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment that we have made considerable efforts to try to find an appropriate way of housing them, should it be appropriate for them to be sent there.

Amendment 110 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for adequate specialist provision to meet health and well-being needs in a secure college, and to make sufficient places available in a secure children’s home. Amendment 117B would impose a number of welfare requirements on secure colleges. These amendments go to the heart of which matters should be for primary legislation, which should be in secondary legislation and which are to be delivered through contractual arrangements. Some of the requirements in Amendment 117B relate to areas of fundamental importance—such as safeguarding, education, health and well-being, staff training and visits—and as such are matters that, rightly, we will address in the secure college rules.

Similarly, Amendment 110 would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that secure colleges have adequate specialist provision in place to address young people’s health and well-being, and to ensure that sufficient places are available in a secure children’s home. The responsibility for commissioning health and well-being services, including specialist provision, for young people in a secure college will rest with NHS England. As noble Lords will be aware, this is in line with the arrangements currently in place for the existing secure estate.

Similarly, it is local authorities, not the Secretary of State, which are responsible for providing sufficient places in secure children’s homes. The Youth Justice Board recently agreed contracts with nine secure children’s homes. As I have previously indicated, we remain committed to ensuring that specialist separate accommodation will be available for the youngest and most vulnerable offenders. NHS England will assess the healthcare needs of all those detained in secure colleges, and commission services appropriate to meet their assessed needs. In doing so, NHS England applies the intercollegiate healthcare standards for children

22 Oct 2014 : Column 677

and young people in secure settings which were developed by the royal medical colleges at the invitation of the Youth Justice Board.

As we indicated in the recently published consultation on our plans for the rules, the role secure colleges play in healthcare is to provide the right environment where healthcare professionals can carry out their responsibilities for the care and well-being of young people. We therefore propose that the rules should include a requirement to ensure that a young person has safe and timely access to health services in a secure college. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is understandably concerned about the quite complex care needs that these young people will have.

As I said in answer to an earlier debate, the design of the healthcare facilities has been developed in collaboration with NHS England, which was consulted at that stage. Indeed, it was NHS England which advised us to amend our plans in order to bring the healthcare provision within the main educational block. NHS England assisted in the consultation and the way that the college is to be configured. Not only will this reduce the disruption to education when young people need to attend health appointments, but it will also help to normalise access to healthcare for a group of young people who, as I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will be aware, have not always had regular contact with a GP or with the specialist services they require. In some senses, it is hoped that they will be better off here than they might be in the community in terms of access to healthcare.

6.30 pm

In our consultation we have proposed rules on the assessment and safeguarding of young people; on a minimum of 30 hours of educational activities for all young people each week; on access to healthcare services commissioned by NHS England; on staff training that is approved by the Secretary of State; and on an entitlement for all young people to receive at least one visit a week. It is worth noting that the Youth Justice Board operates an assisted visits scheme providing financial support to the families and carers of young people in custody. We have proposed a rule setting out the purpose and ethos of secure colleges. We stress that the welfare and safeguarding of young people are vital considerations, which is why we proposed that the requirements and protections I have outlined will be set out in secondary legislation.

Other considerations raised by Amendment 117B will be for contracts to address. We are clear, for example, that the education provision in secure colleges must respond to the regular departure and arrival of young people who may be on remand or serving short sentences. Therefore, roll-on roll-off courses designed quickly to develop skills and raise attainment, as are delivered in the current estate, must be available. However, while the average length of stay in youth custody may be only 85 days, this figure is skewed by the remand population. In fact, around 50% of the population in custody at any time will be serving sentences of at least six months in custody, which is the equivalent of two school terms and therefore provides a real opportunity to make a significant impact on a young person’s life.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 678

I cannot agree to the requirement in Amendment 117B relating to the size of secure colleges. I have heard the arguments that smaller establishments are better environments for young people, and they have been rehearsed today. But there remains no evidence demonstrating that such places achieve better reoffending outcomes or that they present better value for money. While I know that much excellent work is done in secure children’s homes—I repeat what I said earlier in that regard—it is still sadly the case that 72% of young people detained in these establishments reoffend within a year and cost more than £210,000 a place each year. I should perhaps remind the party opposite that placing all young people in such accommodation would cost around an additional £100 million.

Lord Ramsbotham: Will the noble Lord exclude Clayfields from that, where the reconviction rate is 18% and costs are £185,000 a year?

Lord Faulks: I am perfectly happy to accept the costs from the noble Lord. As regards the offending rate, one needs to look over a long period. He tells me those rates but I have not had a chance to see those specific rates or for how long a period. However, I am sure that there are variations within the secure college estate. It would cost around £100 million each year to do what seems to be suggested, which is not a viable solution. It is, as we know, easy to forget the deficit, but this Government do not do so.

Although the secure college pathfinder will have a capacity of 320, the site is composed of seven distinct accommodation buildings, with some broken down into smaller living units. Young people can be accommodated in distinct groups, a sense of community can be fostered in each, and the younger and more vulnerable groups can be kept separately if that is considered appropriate. Our plans demonstrate that big does not mean imposing and impersonal. The size will enable a breadth of services and opportunities to be offered.

It is a consequence of the welcome and significant reduction in the number of young people in custody that there are fewer custodial establishments and that some young people inevitably will be detained further from home. This is not a new problem and, for the reasons I have outlined, a network of small, local facilities is not, sadly, a viable alternative. However, distance from home remains one of the factors taken into account by the Youth Justice Board when placing young people in custody. I am sure that that will be very much a factor. Furthermore, there will be visits as well as technology.

I recognise what lies behind these amendments. I acknowledge the very real concern of noble Lords about young people, whether they are under-15s, girls or more widely, but we genuinely believe that we have sufficient flexibility in the system. We do not think that these requirements should find themselves into law. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I shall be brief. If the proposal goes ahead, which it might, we will end up with two groups of about 40 young people, boys and

22 Oct 2014 : Column 679

girls, from all over the country, in one central location and in an establishment where the vast majority of young offenders, as we have heard from the chief inspector, will be extremely vulnerable and very difficult. The whole atmosphere of the place cannot be compartmentalised in the way in which the noble Lord describes. It is not a satisfactory outcome and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6.35 pm

Division on Amendment 109

Contents 186; Not-Contents 185.

Amendment 109 agreed.

Division No.  1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Adams of Craigielea, B.

Ahmed, L.

Anderson of Swansea, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Beecham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Berkeley of Knighton, L.

Boyce, L.

Bradley, L.

Bragg, L.

Brennan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Brookman, L.

Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.

Browne of Belmont, L.

Cameron of Dillington, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Chidgey, L.

Clancarty, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Collins of Highbury, L.

Corston, B.

Coussins, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Crawley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Donaghy, B.

Donoughue, L.

Drake, B.

Dubs, L.

Eames, L.

Elder, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.

Foulkes of Cumnock, L.

Gale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Glasman, L.

Goodhart, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Goudie, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Greaves, L.

Hanworth, V.

Hardie, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Harrison, L.

Haworth, L.

Hayter of Kentish Town, B.

Healy of Primrose Hill, B.

Henig, B.

Hogg, B.

Hollick, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Howarth of Newport, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Hylton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Janvrin, L.

Jay of Ewelme, L.

Jones, L.

Judd, L.

Kakkar, L.

Kennedy of Southwark, L.

Kestenbaum, L.

Kidron, B.

King of Bow, B.

Kinnock, L.

Kinnock of Holyhead, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Knight of Weymouth, L.

Laming, L.

Lawrence of Clarendon, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Lister of Burtersett, B.

Listowel, E.

Low of Dalston, L.

Lyell, L.

McAvoy, L.

McDonagh, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

McFall of Alcluith, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 680

Mar, C.

Marks of Henley-on-Thames, L.

Martin of Springburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Mawson, L.

Maxton, L.

Meacher, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Mitchell, L.

Monks, L.

Morgan of Ely, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Morris of Handsworth, L.

Morris of Yardley, B.

Nye, B.

O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.

Pannick, L.

Patel, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Patel of Bradford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prescott, L.

Prosser, B.

Quin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ramsbotham, L.

Rebuck, B.

Reid of Cardowan, L.

Richard, L.

Rooker, L.

Rosser, L.

Rowlands, L.

Royall of Blaisdon, B.

Sandwich, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sherlock, B.

Smith of Basildon, B.

Smith of Finsbury, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Snape, L.

Soley, L.

Stern, B.

Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, L.

Stevenson of Balmacara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Bolton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Trees, L.

Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Walpole, L.

Warnock, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

West of Spithead, L.

Wheeler, B.

Whitaker, B.

Whitby, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Willis of Knaresborough, L.

Winston, L.

Wood of Anfield, L.

Woolf, L.

Worthington, B.

Young of Hornsey, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.

Alderdice, L.

Allan of Hallam, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Attlee, E.

Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.

Balfe, L.

Bates, L.

Benjamin, B.

Berridge, B.

Black of Brentwood, L.

Blencathra, L.

Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.

Borwick, L.

Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brinton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnett, L.

Byford, B.

Caithness, E.

Carrington of Fulham, L.

Cathcart, E.

Colwyn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Cormack, L.

Courtown, E.

Crathorne, L.

De Mauley, L.

Deighton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Dobbs, L.

Doocey, B.

Dykes, L.

Eaton, B.

Eccles, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Edmiston, L.

Empey, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Farmer, L.

Faulks, L.

Fellowes of West Stafford, L.

Fink, L.

Flight, L.

Fookes, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Fowler, L.

Framlingham, L.

Freud, L.

Garden of Frognal, B.

Gardiner of Kimble, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Geddes, L.

German, L.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 681

Glasgow, E.

Glendonbrook, L.

Glentoran, L.

Goodlad, L.

Grender, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Hamilton of Epsom, L.

Hanham, B.

Heseltine, L.

Heyhoe Flint, B.

Higgins, L.

Hodgson of Abinger, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Holmes of Richmond, L.

Horam, L.

Howe, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Humphreys, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Hussain, L.

Inglewood, L.

James of Blackheath, L.

Jenkin of Kennington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Jolly, B.

Jones of Cheltenham, L.

Jopling, L.

Kilclooney, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Kirkham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Kramer, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Leach of Fairford, L.

Leigh of Hurley, L.

Lexden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Lingfield, L.

Livingston of Parkhead, L.

Lothian, M.

Luke, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

McNally, L.

Maddock, B.

Mancroft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Marlesford, L.

Mobarik, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Nash, L.

Neville-Jones, B.

Neville-Rolfe, B.

Newby, L. [Teller]

Newlove, B.

Noakes, B.

Northover, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Paddick, L.

Palmer of Childs Hill, L.

Parminter, B.

Patten, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Plumb, L.

Popat, L.

Purvis of Tweed, L.

Randerson, B.

Rawlings, B.

Razzall, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ridley, V.

Risby, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Rogan, L.

Roper, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Seccombe, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Selsdon, L.

Shackleton of Belgravia, B.

Sharkey, L.

Sharples, B.

Sheikh, L.

Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.

Shields, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Smith of Newnham, B.

Spicer, L.

Stedman-Scott, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Stewartby, L.

Stoneham of Droxford, L.

Stowell of Beeston, B.

Suttie, B.

Taylor of Holbeach, L. [Teller]

Teverson, L.

Tope, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

True, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wallace of Tankerness, L.

Walmsley, B.

Wasserman, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wei, L.

Wheatcroft, B.

Wilcox, B.

Williams of Trafford, B.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Wrigglesworth, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.


6.49 pm

Amendment 110 not moved.

Amendment 111

Moved by Lord Ramsbotham

111: Clause 32, page 32, line 17, leave out from “43” to end of line 18 and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”

22 Oct 2014 : Column 682

Lord Ramsbotham: I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6.50 pm

Division on Amendment 111

Contents 178; Not-Contents 191.

Amendment 111 disagreed.

Division No.  2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Adams of Craigielea, B.

Ahmed, L.

Anderson of Swansea, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Beecham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Berkeley of Knighton, L.

Boyce, L.

Bradley, L.

Bragg, L.

Brennan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Brookman, L.

Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.

Browne of Belmont, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Clancarty, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Collins of Highbury, L.

Corston, B.

Coussins, B.

Craigavon, V.

Crawley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Donaghy, B.

Donoughue, L.

Drake, B.

Dubs, L.

Eames, L.

Elder, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B. [Teller]

Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.

Foulkes of Cumnock, L.

Gale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Glasman, L.

Goodhart, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Goudie, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Greaves, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Hardie, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Harrison, L.

Haworth, L.

Hayter of Kentish Town, B.

Healy of Primrose Hill, B.

Henig, B.

Hollick, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Howarth of Newport, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Hylton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Janvrin, L.

Jones, L.

Judd, L.

Kennedy of Southwark, L.

Kestenbaum, L.

Kidron, B.

Kilclooney, L.

King of Bow, B.

Kinnock, L.

Kinnock of Holyhead, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Knight of Weymouth, L.

Laming, L.

Lawrence of Clarendon, B.

Layard, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Lister of Burtersett, B.

Listowel, E.

Low of Dalston, L.

Lytton, E.

McAvoy, L.

McDonagh, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

McFall of Alcluith, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Mar, C.

Marks of Henley-on-Thames, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Mawson, L.

Maxton, L.

Meacher, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Mitchell, L.

Monks, L.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 683

Morgan of Ely, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Morris of Handsworth, L.

Morris of Yardley, B.

Nye, B.

O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.

Pannick, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Patel of Bradford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prescott, L.

Prosser, B.

Quin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ramsbotham, L. [Teller]

Rebuck, B.

Redesdale, L.

Reid of Cardowan, L.

Richard, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Rooker, L.

Rosser, L.

Rowlands, L.

Royall of Blaisdon, B.

Sandwich, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sherlock, B.

Shipley, L.

Smith of Basildon, B.

Smith of Finsbury, L.

Snape, L.

Soley, L.

Stern, B.

Stevenson of Balmacara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Bolton, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Trees, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Walpole, L.

Warnock, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

West of Spithead, L.

Wheeler, B.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Willis of Knaresborough, L.

Wood of Anfield, L.

Woolf, L.

Worthington, B.

Young of Hornsey, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.

Alderdice, L.

Allan of Hallam, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Attlee, E.

Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.

Balfe, L.

Barker, B.

Bates, L.

Berridge, B.

Black of Brentwood, L.

Blencathra, L.

Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.

Borwick, L.

Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.

Bowness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brinton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnett, L.

Byford, B.

Caithness, E.

Cameron of Dillington, L.

Carrington of Fulham, L.

Cathcart, E.

Colwyn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Cormack, L.

Cotter, L.

Courtown, E.

Crathorne, L.

De Mauley, L.

Deighton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Dobbs, L.

Doocey, B.

Dykes, L.

Eaton, B.

Eccles, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Edmiston, L.

Empey, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Farmer, L.

Faulks, L.

Fellowes of West Stafford, L.

Fink, L.

Flight, L.

Fookes, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Fowler, L.

Framlingham, L.

Freud, L.

Garden of Frognal, B.

Gardiner of Kimble, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Geddes, L.

German, L.

Glendonbrook, L.

Glentoran, L.

Goodlad, L.

Grender, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Hamilton of Epsom, L.

Hanham, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Heseltine, L.

Heyhoe Flint, B.

Higgins, L.

Hodgson of Abinger, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Holmes of Richmond, L.

Horam, L.

Howe, E.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 684

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Humphreys, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Hussain, L.

Inglewood, L.

James of Blackheath, L.

Jay of Ewelme, L.

Jenkin of Kennington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Jolly, B.

Jones of Cheltenham, L.

Jopling, L.

Kakkar, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Kirkham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Kramer, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Leach of Fairford, L.

Leigh of Hurley, L.

Lexden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Lingfield, L.

Livingston of Parkhead, L.

Lothian, M.

Luke, L.

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

McNally, L.

Maddock, B.

Mancroft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Marlesford, L.

Mobarik, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Nash, L.

Neville-Jones, B.

Neville-Rolfe, B.

Newby, L. [Teller]

Newlove, B.

Noakes, B.

Northover, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Paddick, L.

Palmer of Childs Hill, L.

Parminter, B.

Patel, L.

Patten, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Plumb, L.

Popat, L.

Purvis of Tweed, L.

Randerson, B.

Rawlings, B.

Razzall, L.

Ridley, V.

Risby, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Rogan, L.

Roper, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Seccombe, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Selsdon, L.

Shackleton of Belgravia, B.

Sharkey, L.

Sharples, B.

Sheikh, L.

Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.

Shields, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Smith of Newnham, B.

Spicer, L.

Stedman-Scott, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Stewartby, L.

Stoneham of Droxford, L.

Stowell of Beeston, B.

Suttie, B.

Taylor of Holbeach, L. [Teller]

Teverson, L.

Tope, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

True, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wallace of Tankerness, L.

Walmsley, B.

Wasserman, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wei, L.

Wheatcroft, B.

Whitby, L.

Wilcox, B.

Williams of Trafford, B.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Wrigglesworth, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

7.02 pm

Amendment 111A not moved.

Amendments 112 and 113

Moved by Lord Faulks

112: Before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—

ScheduleMutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of IrelandPart 1Further provisionCrime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32)

1 Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (EU Convention on driving disqualifications) is amended as follows.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 685

2 (1) Section 54 (road traffic offences in UK: application of section 55) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after “Schedule 3” insert “or Part 1 of Schedule 3A”, and

(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Schedule” substitute “Schedule 3 or Part 2 of Schedule 3A”.

(3) For subsection (3) substitute—

“(3) The minimum period is—

(a) for an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3 in relation to which the Secretary of State has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;

(b) for an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3A in relation to which the Department has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;

(c) for any other offence, a period of six months.”

(4) After that subsection insert—

“(3A) When determining whether the period of disqualification in respect of an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3 is not less than the minimum period, an extension period imposed under any of the following is to be disregarded—

(a) section 35A or 35C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988;

(b) section 248D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;

(c) section 147A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

(3B) When determining whether the period of disqualification in respect of an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3A is not less than the minimum period, an extension period imposed under any of the following is to be disregarded—

(a) Article 8A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/704 (N.I. 6));

(b) Article 40A of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10));

(c) Article 91A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1216 (N.I. 1)).”

(5) After subsection (5) insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 3.

(7) The Department may by regulations amend Schedule 3A.”

3 (1) Section 55 (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident) is amended as follows.

(2) For the heading substitute “Duty to give notice to Republic of Ireland of UK driving disqualification”.

(3) In subsection (1), for “the State in which the offender is normally resident” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.

(4) In subsection (2)(f), for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for “the State mentioned in subsection (1)” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and

(b) for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.

4 For the italic heading before section 56 substitute “Road traffic offences in Republic of Ireland”.

5 (1) Section 56 (road traffic offences in Republic of Ireland: application of section 57) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) The driving disqualification condition is met—

(a) in relation to an offence mentioned in Part 1 of Schedule 3B, if the offender is disqualified in the Republic of Ireland as a result of the offence;

22 Oct 2014 : Column 686

(b) in relation to an offence mentioned in Part 2 of that Schedule, if the offender is disqualified in the Republic of Ireland for a period not less than the minimum period as a result of the offence.”

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) for “a State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”,

(b) for “in that State” substitute “there”, and

(c) for “the law of that State” substitute “the law of the Republic of Ireland”.

(4) For subsection (4) substitute—

“(4) The minimum period is—

(a) for an offence in relation to which the Secretary of State has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;

(b) for any other offence, a period of six months.”

(5) Omit subsection (5).

(6) In subsection (6), for “the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender is normally resident” substitute “the relevant part of the United Kingdom”.

(7) After that subsection insert—

“(6A) In subsection (6), “the relevant part of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) where the offender was normally resident in the United Kingdom when convicted, the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender was normally resident at that time;

(b) where the offender was not normally resident in the United Kingdom when convicted but held a Great Britain licence or a Northern Ireland licence, the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender was last normally resident before conviction.”

(8) Omit subsection (7).

(9) In subsection (8)—

(a) for “treating” substitute “about when”,

(b) after the first “United Kingdom” insert “are to be treated for the purposes of this section”, and

(c) for “a member state other than the United Kingdom” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.

(10) After subsection (9) insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 3B.”

6 (1) Section 57 (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification) is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, for “foreign” substitute “Republic of Ireland”.

(3) In the following provisions, for “the foreign disqualification” substitute “the Republic of Ireland disqualification”—

(a) subsection (1)(a);

(b) subsection (2) (in both places);

(c) subsection (4)(b);

(d) subsection (5)(b);

(e) subsection (6);

(f) subsection (8) (in both places).

(4) In subsection (1)(a) and (b), for “one month” substitute “three months”.

(5) In subsection (2)(b), for “the State in which the offender was convicted” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.

(6) In subsection (3)—

(a) for “a State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and

(b) for “in that State” substitute “there”.

7 In section 58(1)(a) and (b) (notice under section 57), for “the foreign disqualification” substitute “the Republic of Ireland disqualification”.

8 (1) Section 63 (production of licence: Great Britain) is amended as follows.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 687

(2) In subsection (4), for “the competent authority of the relevant State” substitute “the competent authority of the Republic of Ireland or the Department”.

(3) Omit subsection (5).

9 (1) Section 64 (production of licence: Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4), for “the competent authority of the relevant State” substitute “the competent authority of the Republic of Ireland or the Secretary of State”.

(3) Omit subsection (5).

10 In section 65(3) (production of licence: Community licence holders), for the words from “the same” to the end substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.

11 In section 68 (endorsement of licence: Great Britain), for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) This section applies where a person who—

(a) is normally resident in Great Britain, or

(b) is not normally resident in Great Britain but holds a Great Britain licence,

is disqualified by virtue of section 57.”

12 In section 69 (endorsement of licence: Northern Ireland), for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) This section applies where a person who—

(a) is normally resident in Northern Ireland, or

(b) is not normally resident in Northern Ireland but holds a Northern Ireland licence,

is disqualified by virtue of section 57.”

13 In section 70(1) (duty of appropriate Minister to inform competent authority)—

(a) for “any State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and

(b) for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.

14 (1) Section 72 (regulations: Great Britain) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert “, subject to subsection (2A)”.

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 54(6), 56(10) or 71A may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

15 (1) Section 73 (regulations: Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert “, subject to subsection (2A)”.

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Regulations made under section 54(7) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

16 (1) Section 74(1) (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) For the definition of “central authority” substitute—

““central authority” means an authority designated by the Republic of Ireland as a central authority for the purposes of the specified agreement on driving disqualifications;”.

(3) For the definition of “competent authority” substitute—

““competent authority” means an authority which is a competent authority in relation to the Republic of Ireland for the purposes of the specified agreement on driving disqualifications;”.

(4) Omit the definition of “the convention on driving disqualifications”.

(5) In the definition of “disqualified”, after “and” insert “, except in section 71A,”.

(6) Omit the definition of “foreign disqualification”.

(7) At the end insert—

22 Oct 2014 : Column 688

““Republic of Ireland disqualification” means the disqualification mentioned in section 56;

“Republic of Ireland licence” means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under the law of the Republic of Ireland, including a learner permit.”

17 In section 74(2) (interpretation of references to disqualification for life), for “foreign disqualification” substitute “Republic of Ireland disqualification”.

18 In section 74, at the end insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, an individual is normally resident in, or in a part of, the United Kingdom, in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland if his or her normal residence, as defined in Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th December 2006 on driving licences, is there.”

19 (1) Schedule 3 (offences for the purposes of section 54) is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, at the end insert “: Great Britain”.

(3) In paragraph 1, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) “Driver” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988.”

(4) In paragraph 2, omit “or Article 43(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/276 (N.I. 2))”.

(5) In paragraph 3—

(a) omit “or Articles of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (a), omit “or Article 9”,

(c) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “or Article 10”,

(d) in sub-paragraph (c), omit “or Article 12”,

(e) in sub-paragraph (d), omit “or Article 14”,

(f) in sub-paragraph (e), omit “or Article 15”,

(g) in sub-paragraph (f), omit “or Article 16”,

(h) in sub-paragraph (g), omit “or Article 17”, and

(i) in sub-paragraph (h), omit “or Article 18”.

(6) In paragraph 5, omit “or Article 167(1) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))”.

(7) In paragraph 6, omit “or Article 175(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981”.

(8) In paragraph 7(a), omit “or Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10))”.

20 After Schedule 3 insert—

Schedule 3AOffences for the purposes of section 54: Northern IrelandPart 1Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period unnecessary

1 (1) Manslaughter by the driver of a motor vehicle.

(2) “Driver” has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18)).

2 An offence under Article 168A(1)(c) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (driving while disqualified).

3 An offence under Article 175(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (failing to stop after accident and give particulars or report of accident).

4 An offence under any of the following Articles of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18))—

(a) Article 9 (causing death or grievous bodily injury by dangerous driving),

(b) Article 10 (dangerous driving),

(c) Article 11A (causing death or grievous bodily injury by careless or inconsiderate driving),

(d) Article 12 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving),

(e) Article 12B (causing death or grievous bodily injury by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers),

22 Oct 2014 : Column 689

(f) Article 14 (causing death or grievous bodily injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs),

(g) Article 15 (driving, or being in charge, when under the influence of drink or drugs),

(h) Article 16 (driving, or being in charge, of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit),

(i) Article 17 (failing to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test), or

(j) Article 18 (failing to provide a specimen for analysis or laboratory test).

5 An offence under Article 43(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/276 (N.I. 2)) (exceeding speed limit).

Part 2Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period necessary

6 An offence which—

(a) is mentioned in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10)), but

(b) is not an offence mentioned in Part 1 of this Schedule.”

21 After Schedule 3A insert—

Schedule 3BOffences for the purposes of section 56: Republic of IrelandPart 1Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period unnecessary

1 An offence arising from—

(a) reckless or dangerous driving, whether or not resulting in death, injury or serious risk,

(b) wilful failure to carry out the obligations placed on drivers after being involved in road accidents,

(c) driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other substances affecting or diminishing the mental and physical abilities of a driver,

(d) refusal to submit to alcohol and drug tests,

(e) driving a vehicle faster than the permitted speed, or

(f) driving a vehicle while disqualified.

Part 2Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period necessary

2 An offence arising from conduct which is a road traffic offence that is not mentioned in Part 1 of this Schedule.”

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)

22 In Schedule 21 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 93 (uncommenced amendment of section 54 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003).

Part 2Transition from EU Convention to new agreementTransitional period

23 In this Part of this Schedule, “the transitional period” means the period—

(a) beginning with 1 December 2014, and

(b) ending with the day before the first day on which—

(i) section (Mutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of Ireland)(2) to (5) are in force,

(ii) the Secretary of State has specified an agreement under section 71A of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), and

(iii) that agreement has entered into force.

Disapplication of duties and powers to give notices during the transitional period

24 During the transitional period, the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland—

22 Oct 2014 : Column 690

(a) are not required to give a notice under section 55 of the 2003 Act (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident),

(b) are not required or permitted to give a notice under section 57 of the 2003 Act (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification), and

(c) are not required to give reasons under section 70(3) of the 2003 Act (duty to give reasons for not giving a notice under section 57).

25 Paragraphs 23 and 24 are to be treated as having come into force on 1 December 2014.

Application of duties and powers to give notices after the transitional period

26 After the end of the transitional period, the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland—

(a) are required to give a notice under section 55 of the 2003 Act (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident),

(b) are required or permitted to give a notice under section 57 of the 2003 Act (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification), and

(c) are required to give reasons under section 70(3) of the 2003 Act (duty to give reasons for not giving a notice under section 57), only in a case in which the offence referred to in section 54(1) or 56(1) of the 2003 Act was committed after the end of the transitional period.

Saving for pre-1 December 2014 cases

27 The amendments made by section (Mutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of Ireland) and Part 1 of this Schedule do not have effect in relation to a case in which a notice was given to an offender under section 57 of the 2003 Act before 1 December 2014.”

113: Before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—

ScheduleDisclosing private sexual photographs or films: providers of information society servicesEngland and Wales service providers: extension of liability

1 (1) This paragraph applies where a service provider is established in England and Wales (an “E&W service provider”).

(2) Section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) applies to an E&W service provider who—

(a) discloses a photograph or film in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom, and

(b) does so in the course of providing information society services,

as well as to a person who discloses a photograph or film in England and Wales.

(3) In the case of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress), as it applies to an E&W service provider by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in England and Wales, and

(b) the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed at any such place.

(4) Nothing in this paragraph affects the operation of paragraphs 3 to 5.

Non-UK service providers: restriction on institution of proceedings

2 (1) This paragraph applies where a service provider is established in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom (a “non-UK service provider”).

(2) Proceedings for an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) may not be instituted against a non-UK service provider in respect of anything done in the course of the provision of information society services unless the derogation condition is satisfied.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 691

(3) The derogation condition is satisfied where the institution of proceedings—

(a) is necessary for the purposes of the public interest objective,

(b) relates to an information society service that prejudices that objective or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to that objective, and

(c) is proportionate to that objective.

(4) “The public interest objective” means the pursuit of public policy.

Exceptions for mere conduits

3 (1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in—

(a) the provision of access to a communication network, or

(b) the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service,

if the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that the service provider does not—

(a) initiate the transmission,

(b) select the recipient of the transmission, or

(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) the provision of access to a communication network, and

(b) the transmission of information in a communication network,

includes the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted so far as the storage is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if the information is stored for longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

Exception for caching

4 (1) This paragraph applies where an information society service consists in the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service.

(2) The service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of information so provided, if—

(a) the storage of the information is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other recipients of the service at their request, and

(b) the condition in sub-paragraph (3) is satisfied.

(3) The condition is that the service provider—

(a) does not modify the information,

(b) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and

(c) where sub-paragraph (4) applies, expeditiously removes the information or disables access to it.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the service provider obtains actual knowledge that—

(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,

(b) access to it has been disabled, or

(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.

Exception for hosting

5 (1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service

22 Oct 2014 : Column 692

as consists in the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service if sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is satisfied.

(2) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if the service provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided—

(a) that it consisted of or included a private sexual photograph or film,

(b) that it was provided without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, or

(c) that the disclosure of the photograph or film was provided with the intention of causing distress to that individual.

(3) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if, on obtaining such knowledge, the service provider expeditiously removed the information or disabled access to it.

(4) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or control of the service provider.

Interpretation

6 (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule.

(2) “Disclose” and “photograph or film” have the meanings given in section (Meaning of “disclose” and “photograph or film”).

(3) “Information society services”—

(a) has the meaning given in Article 2(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (which refers to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations), and

(b) is summarised in recital 17 of the E-Commerce Directive as covering “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service”,

(4) “Recipient”, in relation to a service, means a person who, for professional ends or otherwise, uses an information society service, in particular for the purposes of seeking information or making it accessible.

(5) “Service provider” means a person providing an information society service.

(6) For the purpose of interpreting references in this Schedule to a service provider who is established in England and Wales or an EEA state—

(a) a service provider is established in England and Wales, or in a particular EEA state, if the service provider—

(i) effectively pursues an economic activity using a fixed establishment in England and Wales, or that EEA state, for an indefinite period, and

(ii) is a national of an EEA state or a company or firm mentioned in Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

(b) the presence or use in a particular place of equipment or other technical means of providing an information society service does not, of itself, constitute the establishment of a service provider;

(c) where it cannot be determined from which of a number of establishments a given information society service is provided, that service is to be regarded as provided from the establishment at the centre of the service provider‘s activities relating to that service.”

Amendments 112 and 113 agreed.

Schedule 5: Secure colleges etc: further amendments

Amendments 114 to 117

Moved by Lord Faulks

114: Schedule 5, page 95, line 1, after “In” insert “the English language text of”

115: Schedule 5, page 95, line 4, at end insert—

22 Oct 2014 : Column 693

“( ) In the Welsh language text of that provision—

(a) for “Goron na” substitute “Goron,”, and

(b) after “cyfarwyddwr)” insert “na phennaeth coleg diogel”.”

116: Schedule 5, page 95, line 5, after “In” insert “the English language text of”

117: Schedule 5, page 95, line 7, at end insert—

“( ) In the Welsh language text of that provision, in the definition of “llety cadw ieuenctid”, after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) coleg diogel;”.”

Amendments 114 to 117 agreed.

Amendments 117A and 117B not moved.

Schedule 6: Contracting out secure colleges

Amendment 118

Moved by Lord Ramsbotham

118: Schedule 6, page 95, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) No contract may be entered into under sub-paragraph (1) until the Secretary of State has, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specified the criteria to be applied in the selection of such contractors.

(2B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I will be brief because much of what I am going to say has already been said, particularly in relation to the criteria. I would like to raise two points. First, I am concerned about the criteria, about which we know nothing, relating to the selection of application for contractors. I remind the House that there used to be in the Ministry of Defence every year an exercise called “basket weaving”. The Secretary of State laid down precisely what was to be done, and then the Treasury produced the money. Then the staffs had to look at the money that had been provided and see whether it allowed the Secretary of State’s direction to be delivered. Invariably, there was not enough money, so people listed in different baskets what was essential to have to carry out the task, what would be desirable to have and what would be nice to have. Those three baskets were then presented to Ministers, who were invited to decide what should not be done because the funding was not available, or to go and ask for more money. That was the decision that they had to take.

The reason I tabled this amendment is that we do not know what it is that the Secretary of State is requiring the contractors to provide, not least in the provision of the specialist staff, whom many noble Lords have mentioned today in connection with looking after this group of younger people. Therefore, my reason for putting down the amendment was to encourage the Government to release these criteria so that we know, and the taxpayer then knows, and can therefore judge, what is actually missing when the contractor puts in their bid. We will not have any say over the bid, but it would be very interesting to know what parts of the original intention could not be provided for these young people because of funding.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 694

My second point relates to a practicality of the delivery of the sort of thing that I know the Minister intends in the secure college. In 1966, the Army’s secondary school in Hohne, in Germany, was achieving remarkable results with children who came or left throughout the term, to and from schools almost anywhere in the world because of the movement of their fathers. When I asked the headmaster the secret of his success, he said that he ran a comprehensive school: every pupil was assessed for their ability in different subjects, and their daily programme was dictated by their ability: top form in maths, bottom in English and so on. When I told him that if that was comprehensive education, I was all for it, he warned me not to hold my breath because streaming by talent was frowned on in England. It worked, because motivated, compliant children got themselves to and from their programmed classes—a total impossibility both in security and in practical terms with the cohort that is likely to be in custody in a secure college. Has anyone thought through the practicalities of limited staff numbers trying to conduct 320 difficult, disruptive and damaged children with fragile motivation and questionable compliance to and from 30 hours of unspecified education, plus myriad other health and social care requirements on this cramped site?

I include that, first of all, as an example of what might be done with all of these children with different needs and problems, as to how to get them to go to where it is most appropriate; but also because I am concerned that this House has not yet had the criteria on which the judgment should be based as to which bid is going to be able to meet them. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about limiting the contract to five, rather than 10, years because I believe that to tie future Governments for 10 years to this proposal—with all that has been said about it around the House today—is several years too long. I beg to move.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. My amendment is designed to avoid the situation that appears to be arising in relation to the awarding of contracts for the probation service. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to confirm this or not, but it is said that the Government are deliberately proceeding with 10-year contracts for the outsourcing of that service, on the basis that, should a future Government decide to change the system, they would have, in effect, to pay up for the whole of the 10 years. In other words, it is really binding the hands of a future Government—in financial terms, if not necessarily in legal ones—in a way that is quite unacceptable. It would be quite wrong—perhaps, one could argue, even more wrong—to do so in this case, with a completely untried institution being set up. Whether or not that ultimately proves successful, in principle it would be entirely wrong. Five years is a perfectly adequate period within which to assess the merits of the proposal; that is, five years of operation, not just five years in chronological time, because the Minister has indicated that if the matter goes ahead, it will not be built until 2017. I hope that the Minister will accept both amendments, particularly the one in my name.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 695

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments relating to the contracting out of secure colleges. I recognise that at the heart of these amendments is an appetite to know more about the Government’s plans for the secure college pathfinder, which is to open in 2017, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, accurately said. Notwithstanding this understandable curiosity, I am concerned that the effect of these amendments would be to limit substantially the ability of the Secretary of State to secure both innovation and value for money from prospective operators of secure colleges.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite rightly described some of the educational challenges that will exist in relation to this cohort of young people. Of course, they exist now, albeit in different custodial establishments. There is nothing new about the challenge; the question is how you meet the challenge.

Amendment 118 proposes that the selection criteria for secure college operators should be set out in regulations, and that these regulations should be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords are aware of our desire to invite innovation in the provision of services to educate and rehabilitate young offenders in secure colleges, and in our view this amendment would undermine that ambition.

Similarly, Amendment 119 proposes a statutory limit of five years on the life of a contract for the operation of a secure college. Again, this would constrain providers in their ability to deliver efficiencies and improved outcomes, potentially undermining the very goals secure colleges seek to achieve. Of course, the Government are ever mindful of expense and this limitation would run counter, we suggest, to the interests of obtaining a satisfactory contractual relationship. It is important to stress that no such constraints apply to the Secretary of State’s powers to commission any other form of custodial provision, and we do not believe that they are appropriate here.

Our intention is to launch a competition next year for an operator of the pathfinder secure college. We will set out our expectations of providers in an operating specification and we will inform bidders of the criteria against which they and their proposals will be evaluated. We will then enter into a period of dialogue with bidders. The dialogue process will be a critical phase of the competition as it will allow us to refine our specification in light of the types of innovation suggested by bidders. I do not want to repeat what is already in the consultation rules that noble Lords will have seen but noble Lords will be aware of what we seek to achieve in terms of blocks of education.

In some areas of secure college provision, such as those identified for inclusion in the rules, the Government will want to clearly specify their requirements; in others, however, we will want to create a degree of flexibility for the experience and expertise of bidders to propose new ways of delivering services and improving outcomes for young offenders. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that we need to improve those existing outcomes. Requiring the criteria by which an operator will be selected to be set out in secondary legislation would, I fear, both delay and hamper the established processes for procuring services that meet the Government’s expectations.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 696

I hope it reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with the Youth Justice Board as we plan for the opening of the pathfinder secure college in 2017. Its expertise in commissioning custodial services for young people will directly inform both the operating specification issued to the market and the criteria by which successful bidders are to be identified.

To answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, effectively posed—how will you assess the bids for the operation of the pathfinder secure college?—we will use a structured and objective evaluation process to identify the most economically advantageous tender. It will involve separate evaluation of the quality of the solutions and price; it will be conducted by a range of personnel with relevant experience—as I indicated, the YJB and the MoJ have extensive experience of objectively and robustly assessing operational service bids—and bids that fail to meet the prescribed minimum acceptable threshold level of the evaluation will be put aside and not considered further.

I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would seek more detail than I am giving him but I hope that by outlining the process, and by the words I have used to describe it, he will understand why the Government are unable to accept his amendment. I hope he is reassured about the process by which secure college operators will be selected and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

7.15 pm

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister once again for the courtesy, care and attention he has paid to giving an answer, which, I must admit, was fuller and more reassuring than I had originally hoped.

I hope, however, that during this process between now and 2017 the same spirit of engagement between the Ministry of Justice, the Youth Justice Board and Members of both Houses will continue. As I am sure the Minister has detected, there is considerable interest, not just in the introduction of the secure college but in its method; we are particularly concerned about its ability to deal with these people.

The noble Lord mentioned the fact that staff move people around on sites but I am sure he reflects that very often the inertia in the day’s programme that prevents vast amounts of it being delivered is caused by trying to get people around a site and the problems that staff have in moving one lot while another lot have to stand fast, and so on. These are practicalities. If the complexity of the large site and keeping many groups separate is anything to go by, this is something that ought to be taken into account. Anyway, accepting the reassurances of the Minister, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Amendments 119 to 120B not moved.

Amendment 121

Moved by Lord Beecham

121: Schedule 6, page 97, line 28, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—

“10 Secure college rules may only authorise the use of reasonable force on children—

22 Oct 2014 : Column 697

(a) as a last resort;

(b) for the purposes of preventing harm to the child or others; and

(c) to the extent that the minimum force necessary should be used.”

Lord Beecham: I wish to test the opinion of the House.

7.18 pm

Division on Amendment 121

Contents 90; Not-Contents 127.

Amendment 121 disagreed.

Division No.  3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Adams of Craigielea, B.

Ahmed, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Beecham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Boyce, L.

Bradley, L.

Brookman, L.

Browne of Belmont, L.

Cameron of Dillington, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Craigavon, V.

Crawley, B.

Davies of Abersoch, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Desai, L.

Drake, B.

Dubs, L.

Eames, L.

Elder, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.

Gale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Hardie, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Haworth, L.

Hayter of Kentish Town, B.

Henig, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Howarth of Newport, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Hylton, L.

Jay of Ewelme, L.

Jones, L.

Kennedy of Southwark, L.

Kilclooney, L.

King of Bow, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Knight of Weymouth, L.

Layard, L.

Low of Dalston, L.

McAvoy, L.

McFall of Alcluith, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Mar, C.

Marks of Henley-on-Thames, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Mitchell, L.

Morgan of Ely, B.

Morris of Handsworth, L.

Morris of Yardley, B.

Nye, B.

Patel of Bradford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prescott, L.

Quin, B.

Ramsbotham, L.

Reid of Cardowan, L.

Rowlands, L.

Royall of Blaisdon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Smith of Basildon, B.

Smith of Finsbury, L.

Soley, L.

Stern, B.

Stevenson of Balmacara, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Trees, L.

Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]

Walpole, L.

Warnock, B.

Wheeler, B.

Whitty, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 698

Balfe, L.

Barker, B.

Bates, L.

Berridge, B.

Bew, L.

Black of Brentwood, L.

Borwick, L.

Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Byford, B.

Carrington of Fulham, L.

Cathcart, E.

Colwyn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Cotter, L.

Courtown, E.

De Mauley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Dundee, E.

Eaton, B.

Eccles, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Empey, L.

Farmer, L.

Faulks, L.

Fookes, B.

Framlingham, L.

Freud, L.

Garden of Frognal, B.

Gardiner of Kimble, L. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Geddes, L.

Glasgow, E.

Glendonbrook, L.

Glentoran, L.

Goodlad, L.

Hamilton of Epsom, L.

Hamwee, B.

Hanham, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Heyhoe Flint, B.

Higgins, L.

Hodgson of Abinger, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Holmes of Richmond, L.

Howe, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Inglewood, L.

Jones of Cheltenham, L.

Jopling, L.

Kakkar, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Lee of Trafford, L.

Leigh of Hurley, L.

Lexden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Lingfield, L.

Luke, L.

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

McNally, L.

Mancroft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Marlesford, L.

Mawson, L.

Mobarik, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Neville-Rolfe, B.

Newby, L.

Newlove, B.

Noakes, B.

Northover, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Paddick, L.

Patel, L.

Patten, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Popat, L.

Randerson, B.

Rawlings, B.

Redesdale, L.

Ridley, V.

Risby, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Seccombe, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Selsdon, L.

Shackleton of Belgravia, B.

Sharkey, L.

Sheikh, L.

Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.

Shields, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Spicer, L.

Stedman-Scott, B.

Stewartby, L.

Stoneham of Droxford, L.

Stowell of Beeston, B.

Suttie, B.

Taylor of Holbeach, L. [Teller]

Trenchard, V.

True, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wasserman, L.

Wheatcroft, B.

Whitby, L.

Williams of Trafford, B.

Younger of Leckie, V.

7.30 pm

Amendment 122

Moved by Lord Faulks

122: Schedule 6, page 103, line 6, at end insert—

“Prison Act 1952 (c. 52)

27A In section 52 of the Prison Act 1952 (exercise of power to make rules etc), after subsection (3) insert—

22 Oct 2014 : Column 699

“(4) A statutory instrument containing rules under section 47 or 47A is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, subject to subsection (5).

(5) A statutory instrument containing rules under section 47 that (whether alone or with other provision)—

(a) authorise a secure college custody officer performing custodial duties at a secure college to use reasonable force, or

(b) otherwise make a substantive change to the circumstances in which such an officer is authorised to do so,

may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) In subsection (5), “secure college custody officer” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2014.”

Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)

27B Omit section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (exercise of powers to make rules under sections 47 and 47A of the Prison Act 1952).”

Amendment 122 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.31 pm.


Northern Ireland: Haass Talks

Question for Short Debate

7.31 pm

Asked by Lord Dubs

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take, together with the government of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland political parties, in reaching and implementing an agreement on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, building on the draft conclusions of the Haass talks.

Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, earlier this week, I attended a plenary of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and we spent last Monday visiting the World War I battlefields in Flanders, especially the graves of so many soldiers who died, including thousands of Irishmen who had volunteered to serve in the British Army. It was a very moving day, especially the ceremony at the Menin Gate at 8 pm that evening.

One of the places that we visited was the Island of Ireland Peace Park and Tower. At that place is a peace pledge from which I wish to quote briefly. It states:

“As Protestants and Catholics, we apologise for the terrible deeds we have done to each other and ask forgiveness. From this sacred shrine of remembrance, where soldiers of all nationalities, creeds and political allegiances were united in death, we appeal to all people in Ireland to help build a peaceful and tolerant society. Let us remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic Soldiers when they served together in these trenches”.

That is just an extract from the pledge.

I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the Haass proposals, which cover parades, flags and dealing with the past. It is really too wide an area for this short debate, so I thought it better to concentrate on just one of these issues; namely, dealing with the past. I should pay tribute to the Eames-Bradley report and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for the part that they played in preparing the way for the Haass proposals. Indeed, I am sorry that the Eames-Bradley report did

22 Oct 2014 : Column 700

not get more attention at the time; it certainly deserved to. It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland should be helped to come to terms with the past, which still weighs heavily on them.

Much progress has of course been made in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements, but the peace is still not solidly based and it is important to make progress on the outstanding issues. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the Good Friday agreement at this time looks vulnerable and fragile. Even at Stormont, the parties could not agree on appointing a new Speaker, having previously said that they would do so. It is a difficult situation and it is against this background that the Belfast talks started last Thursday. Does the Minister have any news about those talks? Will they consider the past and will there be some opportunity to learn more about what is happening there? It is clear that hopes rest heavily on those talks.

As I said, the Good Friday agreement led to the institutions and they have worked pretty well, but I believe that they are now distinctly fragile. Will the Minister confirm what would be the consequence of a collapse in the institutions? Does she feel that there are still people in Northern Ireland, some with considerable influence, who act as if they would not mind if the Executive collapsed? Does she agree that plan B—if one can call it that—would be joint rule by the British and Irish Governments with the strong likelihood of further elections? That would be a dire outcome, so it is even more essential that we do all we can to protect the Good Friday agreement and what it meant for the people of Northern Ireland.

I appreciate that there are other problems in giving effect to the Haass proposals—the Minister will no doubt mention that of the welfare cuts, which I put down as one of the issues that will have to be resolved—yet on the positive side, a few years ago, we had the Saville report on the events on Bloody Sunday. That at the time represented an important step forward—I think that it still is an important step forward— particularly as the Prime Minister endorsed it so warmly. However, that is only one aspect of the past and there are many unresolved issues. Haass represents the chance of moving forward. Have the Government yet endorsed the Haass recommendations? I do not think that they have. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to endorse them as a good way forward to encourage the Northern Ireland parties to act on them.

Let us look briefly at some of the proposals. Of course, essential should be support for victims and survivors, and there should be a strengthening of the Victims and Survivors Service that was established in 2012. There has been a suggestion that the commissioner should be encouraged to establish a mental trauma service. So many people in Northern Ireland have been severely damaged as a consequence of the Troubles. Anything that would help them as regards their mental well-being could only be a good thing.

A key proposal in the Haass report is to establish a historical investigations unit, which could on occasion refer cases to Public Prosecution Service. That unit would embrace some of the existing institutions and bring them together. If the Haass report is to be given effect to, it would certainly be a much more powerful

22 Oct 2014 : Column 701

weapon than we have at the moment. There should also be an independent commission for information retrieval.

To acknowledge the past must be difficult. It is fairly easy at this distance to say, “Get on with it and do it”, but I fully understand how difficult it must be for everyone involved in Northern Ireland to acknowledge some of the things that happened in the past. It is a very difficult psychological process. So many people experienced pain and loss during the conflict. For many, there has been no closure or comfort to date. Haass states:

“Some deaths can be attributed to state actors; the overwhelming majority, however, were caused by paramilitary organisations … For the vast majority of … people, there has been little in the way of closure or comfort; more than 3,000 conflict-related deaths were never solved”.

I shall not list all those deaths—there were many—but I happened to meet some time ago the families from Ballymurphy, scene of one of the painful episodes of the Troubles. As far as I know, there is no further process at the moment to look into what happened there. When I met the families, I said, “We can’t have another 10-year inquiry. It’s got to be much quicker than that, otherwise nobody will accept it”. I think that they agreed with that. Those families whom I met, and they may not be typical of everyone, said that all they wanted was for the truth to come out—no more or less than that. That seems very simple. It may be that other people want more than that; they may want action against people whom they see as the perpetrators. That becomes a more difficult process, because it undermines the way in which evidence can be collected. I was also assured that a lot of the evidence was in existence. Ballymurphy is only one of many incidents which need to be looked at.

In general, conflict situations are difficult to resolve, as we know. If no progress is made, it almost means that the process starts going backwards. It is clear that leadership is needed from all the parties on the Executive. The British Government together with the Irish Government can nudge the process on. We cannot solve it, because so many of the issues are devolved, although not all of them. For our part, if the House reports come to a positive conclusion, there will have to be some UK legislation as well coming through this House and the Commons. As I understand the position, we would need some legislation to deal with some of the issues raised by Haass. So I hope that that will also be possible.

There also needs to be the most widespread possible consultation in Northern Ireland. Just imposing a solution on them would simply not be acceptable. We have to bring the people of Northern Ireland with us in this process or the Northern Ireland Executive and politicians have to bring their people with them, and give the victims a chance to express their views and to comment specifically on any proposals.

I was in Northern Ireland as a junior Minister for two years, leading up to the Good Friday agreement and beyond. I always said to people, “I haven’t been personally affected by the Troubles. Nobody that I know has been affected by the Troubles so it is easier for me and the other Ministers to say hello to everybody and deal with everybody”. None of the backlog of

22 Oct 2014 : Column 702

problems affected us so it was easier. I fully understand, however, that for people in Northern Ireland it is a much more difficult situation. Nevertheless, we want that to be the norm in the peace process so that people can express their views and are able to deal with the people who have transgressed.

I believe that the events in Northern Ireland are at a critical stage—very critical. It is essential that the British and Irish Governments use all their influence to persuade the Northern Ireland political parties to move forward—and, I have to say, to do so quickly.

7.41 pm

Lord Patten (Con): My Lords, if incremental terrorism was the root of the problems that we now discuss, then only incremental reconciliation will slowly lay them to rest as both past and pain diminish with time. That is not to say that the recommendations by Dr Haass and that distinguished woman Professor O’Sullivan, his colleague, rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, are not worth while in themselves. They make some interesting proposals on commissions for information retrieval and all the rest.

Alas, however, that these proposals could not be generated from within Northern Ireland itself by the Northern Irish. There are only so many steps that our Government can take without them being firmly founded on the engaged consent of the population as a whole rather than the partisan responses to the well meant proposals of fly-by highly talented neutral diplomats, however skilled in peace processes—and however self-effacing—they may be.

Truly it is a sad reflection that there seem to be no home-bred great women or great men in Northern Ireland who can be accepted across the piece to undertake that reconciliation task, gaining that indigenous consent. In that fact is found the real measure of the problem and its likely longevity.

It seems that even the most anodyne suggestions from people without simply act as a lightning conductor to reignite ancient discontents, as we have seen in the reaction to the Haass and O’Sullivan reports—even prompting some again to reach for that pike hidden in the thatch. As with the fiscal, so with the peace process; people in the Province have to get a grip on it themselves and make it work. Just as the resolve will rapidly have to be found within the Province to run itself properly before it runs out of money very shortly by dealing with overspending in Northern Ireland, so reconciliation must come via resolve from within and with time. All that can be done in the mean time is to keep on trying; keep on keeping going until the pace of incremental reconciliation really gathers pace one day, when.

7.43 pm

Lord Alderdice (LD): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. Given the number of speakers who wish to take the floor, we all have a very short period of time. In a sense that is the important message. All of us in this House who know about Northern Ireland, particularly those of us who live there, wanted to speak tonight because we are worried about the situation. The noble

22 Oct 2014 : Column 703

Lord described it as fragile, even perhaps critical. He is absolutely right about that. The situation is deteriorating politically—not so much in security terms at this point, but politically it is extremely serious.

The problem with the Haass process is that people seem to feel that what we needed was a political agreement or a political fix. But that is not the case. It is not a question of bringing forward yet more proposals. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his colleague Mr Bradley have produced excellent proposals. The problem is not that. It is getting people emotionally as a community to the point where they are prepared to accept them. Although people have signed up for parity of esteem, the truth is that there are many people in the republican and nationalist community who still act as though they were victims rather than as though there were parity of esteem—and there are those in the loyalist and unionist community who act as though they were still dominant, when in fact there is parity of esteem written into the legislation.

The British Government also have a responsibility in this. Devolution did not mean everything and all responsibilities being handed over to people in Northern Ireland. This was a three-stranded process. The British and Irish Governments were the driver for the peace process—making sure that things continued and in the end came to a good conclusion. They retain a responsibility for making sure that it does not all fall to pieces—and, by the way, it is in their interests. If the devolution component of the three strands disappears, we do not end up with direct rule back to Westminster, but with de facto joint authority, with the north-south institutions that are in place remaining in place, but with a responsibility on the part of British Ministers to engage with Irish Ministers. The north-south thing remains with the British-Irish component: so there is a relationship. Indeed, when it comes to security, if those republicans who have engaged in the political process find that it does not work, it will be the most profound encouragement to those republicans who never believed in the political process and will want to return to the pike—perhaps no longer in the thatch, as the noble Lord has referred to.

This is serious. I deeply hope that my noble friend can not just tell me that there is a process under way with the Secretary of State and her opposite number, but show an appreciation of the gravity of the political situation at present. It is serious. If this House does not find a way of encouraging the Government to take it seriously, we will find ourselves back having to deal with some of the really contentious issues that we had desperately hoped were no longer on our plate.

7.47 pm

Lord Eames (CB): My Lords, we frequently hear the phrase that is the headline for this debate: “dealing with the past”. But less frequently do we consider what those words mean. Thirty years of conflict, 3,500 deaths, family life subjected to unbelievable stress, victimhood inflicted on thousands, and memories of loved ones injured and scarred for life, both in uniform and out of it. I speak after more than 40 years of pastoral work in Northern Ireland, 20 of them as

22 Oct 2014 : Column 704

Anglican archbishop. The recollection of numerous funerals and the attempts to support broken families will go with me to my grave.

When people talk about dealing with the past, it is much more than statistics that can be dismissed with the stroke of the political pen. It is about faces, voices, tears and frustration: little children deprived of parents. It is about people. Many of those people today ask for justice for themselves or for a loved one. Three thousand unsolved deaths remain to be addressed. They ask for justice, but justice comes in many forms: someone standing in the dock, someone taking responsibility, someone offering an apology—and some simply want to know what happened. I could quote many examples of each of those categories. Above all, they emphasise that foremost in any solution to the past must be the victims and the survivors.

The Consultative Group on the Past, of which I was privileged to be co-chairman, produced the suggestion of a legacy commission that would combine the elements of reconciliation, investigation and storytelling. It should last for five years and it should bring a form of closure to dealing with the past. We presented that blueprint more than five years ago. Whatever else was rejected in our report, the seeds of a legacy commission remain a talking point today, and indeed have surfaced in one form in the recent Haass proposals.

Northern Ireland is tired of political posturing and endless discredited proposals. Most of its people want to move on and live their lives. Today health, education and jobs are the real issues. However, until and unless there is the political will to deal with the past, our community will lurch from one disclosure, one media speculation and one blame game to another. I beg the Minister to take some of this frustration back to the Government, for I honestly believe that until there is some redress and the political will to address the issues of the tragic past, a lot else will fail.

7.50 pm

Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this timely debate and for his supportive interest in Northern Ireland affairs.

I want to make three observations and one plea to the Government. First, it is important to remember how far we have come in Northern Ireland over the past few years. Northern Ireland is a transformed society. The Province is almost unrecognisable from what it was like just a quarter of a century ago. Northern Ireland is a place where people now want to come and to invest, where our young people want to stay and make their lives, and where relative peace and stability are now the norm. That progress has been built on the restoration of devolved powers.

Secondly, we should remember just how slow that progress has been. Though it is now 20 years since the announcement of the first IRA ceasefire and the loyalist ceasefires, and 16 years since the Belfast agreement, it is still only seven years since devolution was restored on a stable and lasting basis—it is fair to say that we never rush these things. So while it is easy to become frustrated with the pace of change, we must not become discouraged. Nor should we have unrealistic expectations

22 Oct 2014 : Column 705

about quick solutions to the most difficult issues that have so far eluded us. It is hardly surprising that the issues that have yet to be fully and comprehensively addressed are some of the most difficult. The reality is that it has proved to be easier to share power than to agree what happened in the past.

Thirdly, we should be aware that it is not the problems of flags, parading or the past that currently threaten the process, but the issue of the implementation of the UK coalition Government’s welfare reform policy. It is indeed regrettable that the nationalist parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly have refused to support legislation to implement those reforms.

The cost of this failure to reach consensus, in terms of penalties imposed by the Treasury and IT costs, will quickly increase to hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Given the already constrained fiscal position, cuts of this magnitude would simply not be deliverable and would jeopardize the future viability of devolved government. My party, while opposing aspects of welfare reform in this Parliament, accepts that the parity principle that has served us well in Northern Ireland should be adhered to. In addition, we have proposed to fund from our own budget in Northern Ireland measures designed to alleviate the burden of the reductions in welfare payments on those least able to afford them.

I want to see the parties in Northern Ireland agreeing a way forward on welfare reform. However, if they cannot, my plea to the Government is simple: they must act quickly and, if necessary, legislate in order to save the rest of the devolved settlement. If this issue is not addressed quickly, there will not be a functioning Stormont to consider solutions to other problems, such as the issue of the past.

I trust that in the weeks to come the parties will be given the opportunity and encouragement to find local solutions—but, if they do not, the Government must act to preserve and protect the progress that has been made to ensure that Stormont can continue to function.

7.54 pm

Lord Lexden (Con): This is an extraordinarily timely debate, for which we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Following the restoration of devolution in the Province, there is always a danger that the affairs of this part of our country will slip too far down Westminster’s agenda. A debate such as this helps to ensure that that does not happen. With the whole constitutional order in flux after the Scottish referendum, it is especially important that full attention is given to Northern Ireland’s place in the significant changes that are under consideration to recreate constitutional stability throughout our land.

The need for an agreement on dealing with the past, with which this Motion is concerned, will clearly be at the centre of the cross-party talks that my right honourable friend the Secretary State for Northern Ireland initiated last week. As she stressed, continuing disputes over the truth of what happened during the Troubles, and the deep, still raw grief in both communities, about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, once again spoke so movingly and eloquently, contribute significantly to the difficulty of sustaining the progress

22 Oct 2014 : Column 706

that has been made in Northern Ireland, as do disputes over flags and parades. They consume ever-increasing amounts of time and resources, which so badly need to be redirected to securing our fellow countrymen’s and women’s shared future together with the rest of us.

In the last 30 years of the 20th century, all the irreconcilables of Irish history came to dwell in the north. They do not yield readily to the healing processes in which so many fine people, both here and in Northern Ireland, have been engaged and must continue to be engaged until the vital goal of a shared future firmly within the framework of the United Kingdom has been attained.

We are all surely united in wishing the Secretary of State every success in her endeavours. The challenge for her and all the participants in the discussions that are about to take place is to extract from the Haass talks last year the elements that can be incorporated in a firm agreement, along with proposals to settle the increasingly bitter disagreements within the Northern Ireland Assembly over budgetary matters and welfare reform that are tearing it apart. That is a tall order, but the very obduracy of the problems underlines the need to seek every means of reducing them.

As regards the past, we surely need irrefutable concrete evidence on which to base action, and that cannot come solely from official records. There can be no special treatment for one side of the conflict. Everything must be open and nothing concealed. There must be no repetition of the appalling secret scheme that benefited some 200 terrorist suspects under the previous Government and this one. Dealing with the past must not be at the expense of handling current issues, as the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has rightly warned.

These are some of the principles that might usefully help to guide the discussions that are to unfold. As the draft prepared at the end of the Haass talks states:

“It is clear that the vast majority of citizens and communities wish to live free of the division and enmity that has too often defined this society”.

They are our fellow citizens, our fellow communities. As someone once said: “We are all in this together”.

7.57 pm

Lord Empey (UUP): My Lords, as other Members have stated, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whom we all regard as a good friend of Northern Ireland, both as a Minister and as a Member of your Lordships’ House.

Mention has been made of the budget. Never before, despite all the difficulties, have the Northern Ireland Executive failed to balance their books. While welfare reform is a significant part of the difficulty, it is much less than half the financial shortfall that the Executive are facing, so even if welfare reform were resolved, that would not be the solution in itself. Let us not get into the mindset that if this welfare reform issue had not arisen, we would be fine—we would not.

This is the first time ever that we have been in a position to have to come running in the way that the Executive did a few weeks ago. Ironically, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are now in the

22 Oct 2014 : Column 707

financial driving seat and conditions have been laid down. A budget for next year is to be agreed by the end of this month, and conditions apply. We describe it as a Wonga result for the Executive, so this is a very sad day.

With regard to the Haass talks, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not quite correct to say that a lot of these proposals came from Haass. Haass brought a lot of them together but a lot of them were indigenous proposals from different parties at the talks. I can tell him and the House that, had there been an agreement on the past at the Haass talks in January, a few weeks subsequent to that agreement we would have been left in the ludicrous position of learning about the on-the-runs issue and our credibility with the community would have been reduced to zero. So there is an absence of belief in frankness. There is an absence of belief that we know all that has been and is going on, which is a major consideration.

Of course, if we do not solve the financial problems it is rather irrelevant because devolution will not survive the absence of a financial resolve. That is common sense. Haass, however, in the proposals for a historic inquiries unit meant the establishment of a parallel police force outwith the control of the chief constable. This also meant a hugely costly, open-ended process whereby the state would always be at a disadvantage because it has the records and the paramilitary organisations do not. That imbalance is always there and has to be resolved before there will be any agreement. In the expectation that the Secretary of State’s process were to produce a result, or even not, can the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State is prepared to put her proposals to a referendum or to recommend another Assembly election to ratify anything that might emerge from the process?

8 pm

Lord Hylton (CB): My Lords, we all know that Northern Ireland is still deeply divided. One has only to look at segregated education and housing, walls separating communities, flags, parades, emblems, unsolved historic crimes and mixed marriages. Tonight’s debate refers to the conclusions of the Haass talks. These seem to be the recommendations of mediators trying to propose rational compromises. The parties may well not accept them because they do not feel they own them. There is a further flaw. The parties get many votes at elections but that does not always mean that the votes reflect the views of most peace-loving citizens. Such people want to get on with their lives. Therefore, they will usually back the least bad candidates. This means that the opinions of civil society, trade unions, business groups and voluntary organisations, including churches, should be taken into account when trying to deal with the most divisive issues. Will the Government do so and, if so, how?

My experience of visiting prisoners, some politically motivated and some not, together with my association with NIACRO and other voluntary groups, makes me think that a method, so far untried, may prove helpful. This is professionally assisted conflict analysis. This can be provided by networks of disinterested individuals, some of whom have built up their expertise in other

22 Oct 2014 : Column 708

conflicts. Facilitated analysis looks at the causes, rather than the symptoms, of conflict. It helps participants to focus on win-win solutions, which satisfy real felt needs, especially identity needs. The difficulty is to find the right participants, available for long enough—people who represent significant groups or who can form public opinion.

I have outlined the method of conflict analysis to the Secretary of State and the First and Deputy First Ministers. Some 20 years after the main ceasefires and 16 years after the Belfast agreement, we still face deep divisions. Perhaps it is time to try a new method. I have given notice, and look forward to the Government’s response.

8.03 pm

Lord Bew (CB): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this important debate. He has always been a great friend to Northern Ireland. I regret that what I have to say will be relatively cautious in the context of so many earlier eloquent speeches. I hope it will not appear negative but I think it is important to register certain points.

One concern is the cost of the Haass proposals. I fully support the Treasury’s decision to make the loan of £110 million and to ease the immediate crisis in the Executive. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, in the context of strict repayment conditions it is very difficult for Northern Ireland to take on board new commitment to public expenditure. If it is true that the Haass proposals amounted to hundreds of millions, that has to be something that we consider carefully. I ask the Minister to give us some help on exactly how costly they might have been. Also, Dr Haass’s proposal outwith the talks when he accepted the Tipperary peace prize for making the Irish language a second official language cannot be, whatever its other merits or demerits, a cost-free proposal.

The other crucial point I want to make is that I have come—I regret to say this because I feel the needs of the victims so strongly and it is such a disappointing thing to say, particularly for those young scholars who want to participate in this process—increasingly to the view that the idea of a shared process of recovery from the past is not a very likely project. It was one I used to strongly and until recently believe in. I have not given up on it completely but I am increasingly sceptical. The unionist community basically believes that the state is responsible for only 10% of deaths, loyalist paramilitaries for 30% and republicans for 60%. They therefore believe that any narrative must reflect the fact that the lion’s share of the killing was carried out by republicans. It is quite straightforward: that is their view of the matter and that is what they want to hear. The republican community, on the other hand, with the support of a large cast of journalists, clerics and NGOs, focuses on broader explanatory factors which emphasise long-term structural factors, discrimination, sectarianism, institutional culpability and collusion. This can sometimes be linked to a broader discourse of human rights, transitional justice and reconciliation. These are two world views you can accept or quote. They are fundamentally opposed. It is hard to see how you can have a shared process when you acknowledge this fact.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 709

Finally, there is the question raised very sharply—it has already been alluded to—by Mr Adams at the weekend when, under pressure, he made an important comment about the Maria Cahill case, which has attracted a lot of attention. It was an alleged rape by a suspected IRA member in 1997. Mr Adams has been under a great degree of media pressure in both the north and the south about this. He said:

“The IRA has long since left the scene so there is no corporate way of verifying”,

what happened in this case. What does this mean for any wider shared process of recovery from the past? The state definitely has a corporate memory but he is now saying the IRA has no corporate memory. It has disappeared. What can this possibly mean for a shared process? These are the reasons for my scepticism. I regret to say these things. I think there are things that the state can do unilaterally and a great deal of consideration should be given to those things, but the shared process seems at this moment, I deeply regret to say, very elusive.

8.07 pm

Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. All these issues around flags, parades and the past are interrelated and it is very important that they are not considered in isolation from each other. Many of the social problems facing communities in Northern Ireland are either a product of, or are compounded by, sectarian divisions. It is deeply depressing that the divisions that run deep in Northern Ireland’s society have been left alone in the “too difficult to handle” box. Effective and sustainable solutions can come only as part of a shared approach, which acknowledges that disengagement, disaffection and disadvantage affect both communities—loyalists and nationalists.

Building a shared future is the single biggest challenge facing Northern Ireland, and it will not achieve what it should for its citizens, either economically or socially, if this critical issue is not addressed. However, it will not be addressed by tinkering at the edges, by trying to manage the symptoms of the problem or by looking at issues in a piecemeal fashion. Although a critical part of finding a means of dealing with the past, it is only one part of the equation. There is a moral duty to provide justice or some other form of truth and reconciliation to those who were the victims of years of terror, especially those who have been bereaved.

The work done by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley needs to be taken from the shelf, dusted down and much of it implemented, as it gave a road map for this particularly difficult area. It is crucial that victims are at the centre of any process dealing with the past, because without resolving their issues with openness and integrity, society in Northern Ireland cannot hope to make progress on other issues such as the economy and education. The proposals of Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan went a long way to finding justice and truth for all victims in Northern Ireland, and have provided an opportunity that Northern Ireland cannot afford to miss.

22 Oct 2014 : Column 710

However, underpinning all this must be the matter of security. I have talked many times of the difficulties being placed on the PSNI and make no apology for doing so again. The PSNI has £100 million less for policing this year than last. Patten envisaged an establishment figure of 7,500 police officers in a peacetime scenario. We are still far from that and the PSNI now has only 6,600 officers to deal with the continuing unrest. By the close of 2013, Northern Ireland had witnessed 41 gun and 85 bomb attacks, many of which were targeted at police officers, both on and off duty. Imagine that happening on the mainland. Mainly as a result of public disorder, 820 officers have been injured while policing the flag protests and contentious parades. The ACC stated last week that some of the 84 neighbourhood policing teams across Northern Ireland would have to be closed because of the lack of funds.

Other serious consequential problems arise because of not finding a solution to the budget shortfall. This simply cannot continue. The people of Northern Ireland need a real solution to these issues and to the current impasse on the budget. There is now a fresh opportunity, with the current talks, for politicians there to show real leadership and to work together to deliver shared solutions to shared problems.

8.11 pm

Lord Kilclooney (CB): My Lords, the Belfast agreement provided for a shared Administration of Stormont but, unfortunately, it is now possible for an individual political party to exercise a veto over that shared Administration. It has happened, for example, in welfare reform. We now have a budgetary crisis in Northern Ireland.

The credibility of the Stormont Administration is at a very low level. They have lost respect across the Province. There has been little legislation in that Assembly for the past few years. We have lost Ryanair and John Lewis’s store through a lack of decision. The Belfast agreement itself has not been fully honoured. Even from the outset, the IRA could not call the country “Northern Ireland”. That was the way in which we implemented the Belfast agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a great supporter of integrated education. We who negotiated the Belfast agreement, and paragraph 13 on rights and equalities, asked the Stormont Administration to promote integrated education. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that yesterday the Roman Catholic Church demanded that the Stormont Assembly drop the promotion of integrated education in Northern Ireland. That is a reality.

The Haass recommendations were not popular across Northern Ireland; let us not pretend otherwise. They did not even mention the IRA. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentions, quite properly, the cost of the six quangos that were recommended. They were not costed; we do not know what they were going to be. All we know is that the Secretary of State confirmed that they would have to come out of the devolved budget, and not from Westminster.

You could see the hand of the Irish-American lady deputy throughout the entire Haass report. This was a diplomat who spent four years in Iraq abolishing the

22 Oct 2014 : Column 711

Iraqi army, sacking all 80,000 civil servants and creating a sectarian constitution in Iraq which has brought us to the chaos we have there.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Republic of Ireland will not be involved in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Alderdice, that it is dangerous to tell the majority community in Northern Ireland that, if devolution ceases, the Republic of Ireland will be involved in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. That would set off a fire across Northern Ireland, let us not pretend otherwise.

On participation, all parties must be involved in the talks. The political landscape in Northern Ireland has changed in the past four years and 100,000 unionists from the previous election are excluded from these talks while 210,000 are included. If you exclude such a large proportion of unionists from the talks, you are already writing a formula for the talks’ collapse. The way forward must be to address the flags issues immediately. It can be done, it is not impossible; the Flag Institute has confirmed that there is no flag for Northern Ireland. Above all, we must restructure the Stormont Assembly, retaining a cross-community future and providing an Official Opposition, to be fairly funded.

8.15 pm

Lord McAvoy (Lab): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not only for securing this debate tonight but for his long, positive involvement in Northern Ireland, to which many colleagues have referred. He has a reputation and is extremely well thought of.

Northern Ireland has in recent years made great progress. Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness must be complimented on attracting compelling inward and foreign direct investment. However, Stormont’s five main parties have failed to make concrete political progress on issues such as flags, parades and the legacy of the Troubles.

I think that this House’s message to all of Northern Ireland is clear. Individuals, politicians and executive leaders have done so much to steer Northern Ireland in the right direction that it would be a calamity if successive years of co-operation led to gridlock. It is essential that the Belfast agreement is fully implemented. Sinn Fein must be encouraged to engage itself in welfare reform, which is obviously going to affect Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party and other unionist parties must support other cross-party agreements, such as those in relation to the appointment of a Speaker. If we get into a tit-for-tat situation, we really are in trouble.

In preparing for tonight, I had assistance from a young man called Duncan McEwen. It hit home once again how long the Troubles have been with us when he was able to say that such-and-such an event happened on a day 30 years before he was born. That is another lesson to us: we must do something positive.

In situations such as these, standing still is surely equivalent to moving backwards, antagonism is equivalent to failure and intolerance is equal to that of the past. Working together may not require friendship or even forgiveness, but surely requires mutual respect and a

22 Oct 2014 : Column 712

recognition of unavoidable compromise. The construction of the road to peace has not yet been completed. Engineers from all parties must show leadership, tolerance and an ability to accept compromise to oversee its finalisation.

The sombre statement of fact from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland if the Assembly were to collapse is absolutely correct. While I might not totally endorse the language of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, such a situation would inevitably be extremely difficult. Such problems have arisen because there is a feeling that the current Government have distanced themselves from Northern Ireland. I call upon the Government to work exhaustively to end the current stalemate and, if appropriate and necessary, to work with the Irish Government to provide a framework for talks, nominating a chair accepted by all parties. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and ask the Minister to state the Government’s response to this situation.

8.18 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his thoughtful speech and for the opportunity he has given us for what has been a high-quality debate on this issue. I thank noble Lords for their participation.

In any debate on Northern Ireland’s troubled past, we must acknowledge the pain and suffering inflicted on so many people. As a Government, we are acutely aware of the many victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, many of whom still bear the physical and emotional scars. We must never forget the many thousands who lost their lives, as several noble Lords have mentioned this evening.

This Government believe that it is essential that the Northern Ireland parties find an agreed way forward on how to deal with the past in Northern Ireland. However, we recognise, as have many noble Lords this evening, the challenge that this presents. There have been several attempts to reach agreement and many suggestions put forward. The Eames-Bradley report, in 2009, made a number of recommendations, but it also demonstrated the strength of feeling around this issue. I greatly appreciate the participation of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, this evening. More than one noble Lord this evening has referred to the fact that there are issues of great relevance in that report, and things that deserve to be looked at again.

There were also, as many noble Lords have said, the talks led by Dr Richard Haass late last year. Many commentators have remarked that of flags, parades and the past, the past could well be the most difficult issue to resolve. Yet, remarkably, the past was arguably the issue on which the greatest amount of progress was made in those talks. Although an overall agreement proved elusive, much progress was made between the parties. Following those talks, the Government continued to press the Northern Ireland parties to resume their negotiations and find a way forward.

As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set out clearly, it is our best assessment that the time is now right for a new set

22 Oct 2014 : Column 713

of talks on the range of challenges faced in Northern Ireland. Those talks started in Belfast last week, and we have on balance taken encouragement from the approach adopted by the parties thus far. The discussions were serious and businesslike and we hope that all the parties will continue to engage positively in the process.

However, these talks are not and cannot be about the Government intervening to impose solutions on the Northern Ireland parties; they are about helping, supporting and facilitating in order to reach agreement on the issues for which the Northern Ireland parties have primary responsibility. The system of government established under the various agreements enables Northern Ireland’s political leaders to make decisions on local issues.

We are, however, willing to help and support them where we can. The Secretary of State chaired an initial meeting of the parties last week, as well as a number of bilateral meetings. Over the next few weeks the talks will look at a number of issues, including: finance and budgets—including welfare reform, to which noble Lords referred this evening; the working of the Assembly and the Executive; and outstanding commitments of the agreements.

There are many challenges ahead, and the parties are of the view that they cannot resolve these alone, so we will support, guide and facilitate, providing advice where we can. The Secretary of State is leading those discussions and the Irish Government are likewise involved. Consistent with previous talks processes, they are structured according to the three-stranded approach referred to by my noble friend Lord Alderdice.

The talks will also look at another set of issues. The Government have long pressed the parties to reach agreement on the legacy issues of flags, parades and the past. Tomorrow the focus of the talks will be on those issues. The Secretary of State will again emphasise the need for a way forward, because the prize for doing so is immense.

As the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord McAvoy, said, Northern Ireland is a society much changed since the dark days of the Troubles. It is a modern, vibrant society with real potential, which has demonstrated its ability to play a major role on the world stage; for example, with the G8 summit. However, the legacy of division looms large in political life, often at the expense of developing the economy and building a shared future. That needs to change.

I will respond to points and questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the consequences of the collapse of the institutions. He is right to suggest that the default position will be that there will be an election. There were resignations so that the institutions could not operate; there must be fresh elections. There are no longer any statutory powers to impose direct rule. It is important that anyone who thinks that the resolution of the current problems faced by the Executive would lie in a short period of direct rule should understand that that is no longer the case. It would prove very difficult indeed to re-establish the institutions if it were necessary eventually to resort to something like that.

In response to the noble Lord’s question on the Haass recommendations, as he knows, some of the parties in the negotiations chaired by Dr Haass endorsed

22 Oct 2014 : Column 714

his final proposals. Others did not. The Secretary of State has made it clear that if the parties endorsed recommendations of that sort, we should be prepared to operate them. She has made it clear that a structured approach to the past may be a great advance.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice asked about the situation and emphasised that it is very serious. I say to him that we do not for a moment underestimate the high stakes in the present talks. It is essential that we find a way to ensure that power-sharing in the institutions carries on.

The noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Empey, referred to the need for agreement on welfare and the fact that the financial problems facing the Executive are not by any means entirely down to the lack of agreement on welfare. We regard it as essential that the Executive re-establish orderly finances. It is simply not possible for the current situation to continue—it must be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Government would take account of the views of civil society as well as those of the political parties. I am very pleased indeed that the noble Lord raised that issue. We welcome the activity by members of civil society, and by church leaders, in providing leadership at this difficult time. For example, we welcome the work of the Make It Work campaign, which provides a point of focus other than the political parties, which is to be welcomed across society in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord also asked about professionally facilitated conflict analysis. That is certainly an interesting idea, but of course it is something that we would consult the parties on. I emphasise again that this process is led by the political parties and no longer by the British and Irish Governments. We have facilitated, brought them together and are urging them on, but the process has to be undertaken and agreed to by the political parties.

Lord Kilclooney: If the process is being led by the political parties, why have the Government therefore excluded the unionist representatives of one-third of the unionist vote in Northern Ireland? Some 100,000 unionist voters are not represented at these talks; 200,000 unionist voters are. That is no formula for success.

Baroness Randerson: The parties represented at the talks are those represented within the Executive, and it is important to bear in mind that the talks are going ahead with the agreement of the parties concerned.

I must complete my remarks now. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the need for an election or a referendum on the outcome of the talks. I will ensure that his point is conveyed to the Secretary of State, but I would point out that there is an election coming up in the near future in any event.

Lord Empey: I did not ask for those; I just wondered whether the Minister would be prepared to hold them. I am not advocating them.

Baroness Randerson: In that case I misunderstood the noble Lord. I apologise for that. I will of course review the record of the debate, and if there are any outstanding questions that I have failed to answer,

22 Oct 2014 : Column 715

I shall ensure that I write to noble Lords on those issues. I thank them for raising such important points this evening.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill14th Report (Session 2013–14) from the Joint Committee on Human Rights 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

8.31 pm

Amendment 122A

Moved by The Earl of Listowel

122A: After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—

“Lifetime reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings involving children under 18

(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 45 (power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18) insert—

“45A Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings for lifetime of persons under 18

(1) This section applies in relation to—

(a) any criminal proceedings in any court (other than a service court) in England and Wales, and

(b) any proceedings (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in any service court.

(2) The court may make a direction (“a reporting direction”) that no matter relating to a person mentioned in subsection (3) shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as being concerned in the proceedings.

(3) A reporting direction may be made only in respect of a person who is under the age of 18 when the proceedings commence.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), matters relating to a person in respect of whom the reporting direction is made include—

(a) the person’s name,

(b) the person’s address,

(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment attended by the person,

(d) the identity of any place of work of the person, and

(e) any still or moving picture of the person.

(5) In determining whether to make a reporting direction in respect of a person, the court must have regard to—

(a) the welfare of that person,

(b) whether it would be in the interests of justice to make the direction, and

(c) the public interest in avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings.

(6) A reporting direction may be revoked by the court or an appellate court.

(7) The court or an appellate court may by direction (“an excepting direction”) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction.

(8) The court or an appellate court may only make an excepting direction if—

(a) it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, or

(b) it is satisfied that—

(i) the effect of the reporting direction is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and

22 Oct 2014 : Column 716

(ii) it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction.

(9) No excepting direction shall be given under subsection (8)(b) by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned.

(10) In determining whether to make an excepting direction in respect of a person, the court or the appellate court must have regard to the welfare of that person.

(11) An excepting direction—

(a) may be given at the time the reporting direction is given or subsequently, and

(b) may be varied or revoked by the court or an appellate court.

(12) For the purposes of this section—

(a) criminal proceedings in a court other than a service court commence when proceedings are instituted for the purposes of Part 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in accordance with section 15(2) of that Act;

(b) proceedings in a service court commence when the charge is brought under section 122 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

(13) In this section “appellate court”, in relation to any proceedings in a court, means a court dealing with an appeal (including an appeal by way of case stated) arising out of the proceedings or with any further appeal.

(3) In section 49 (offences under Chapter 4)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section also applies—

(a) in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a service court;

(b) in England and Wales, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a court other than a service court;”, and

(b) at the end insert—

“(7) Schedule 2A makes special provision in connection with the operation of this section, so far as it relates to a publication that includes matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2), in relation to persons providing information society services.”

(4) In section 50 (defences)—

(a) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) Where—

(a) a person is charged with an offence under section 49, and

(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2),

it shall be a defence, unless subsection (6B) or (8) applies, to prove that the person in relation to whom the direction was given had given written consent to the inclusion of that matter in the publication.

(6B) Written consent is not a defence by virtue of subsection (6A) if the person was under the age of 18 at the time the consent was given.”, and

(b) in subsection (8), after “defence” insert “by virtue of subsections (5) to (7)”.”

The Earl of Listowel (CB): The amendment stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am afraid that it is a little technical, and I may have to speak for seven or eight minutes. I apologise for that, and I will try to be as quick as possible at this hour.

Amendment 122A proposes a solution to the problems that we face concerning anonymity for children in court proceedings. It creates a default anonymity into adulthood, and allows the court to remove this where

22 Oct 2014 : Column 717

it considers necessary. I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled in this group, but I feel that they do not go quite far enough, and I hope to persuade your Lordships, and the Minister, that perhaps he might like to look at this area again before Third Reading and table something to meet some of the concerns that I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are about to raise.

Since the Children and Young Persons Act was passed in 1933, children in court have been entitled to remain anonymous, whether they are defendants, victims or witnesses, and Sections 39 and 49 of that Act impose different reporting restrictions, depending on whether a case is in the youth court or a different court. These prevent information being published that could lead to the identification of a child. However, whether those restrictions must be respected after a child turns 18, when proceedings have been concluded before then, is a complex question, which seems to have caused great confusion.

So far as I am aware, media organisations have generally respected reporting restrictions even after a child has reached 18, where the proceedings had concluded before then. So children who had historically been involved in court proceedings have not been named in practice, even after they have reached adulthood, whether they were victims, witnesses or defendants.