| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Norton of Louth: I want to make a point related to our earlier discussion. We said that it was very important that certain points should be put in the Bill in relation to Clause 2. The Minister's argument was that that was not necessary, as they would go into the order. He is now saying that the order should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It cannot be both. If it will not be subject to affirmative resolution, there must be consideration of putting the points that we raised earlier into the Bill. If they are not in it, we have to subject not only the main order but the pilot order to parliamentary approval.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful for that contribution but am left with the problem that, if we put the order in the Bill, it will be a very large Bill and will create a precedent that may not be acceptable. We will consider the noble Lord's point, and I will write to him well before Report.
Baroness Hanham: Can we get the matter clear? There must be some common principles on the pilot orders. If all that we have discussed throughout the process is not to go into the Bill—we will all still want it in the Bill—it has to be in the pilot order. There must be principles that go all the way across every pilot order, and they must be agreed in Parliament and by the Committee. The Minister may not be able to answer now, but consideration has to be given to how what our discussions finally conclude is taken into account for the legislation. We need some more clarity.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can provide that clarity. We are consulting all noble Lords interested in the orders. If, during that consultation process, there are principles in the orders that noble Lords feel need to be in the Bill, they can raise such matters at the next stage. We are not trying to avoid any issues. I have told Members of the Committee that they will see the policy document so many times that
they are bored. In that way, we can look at the matter as we look at the orders and get a satisfactory resolution for everyone, I hope.
Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for his contribution for the 10th time, or whatever it is. Obviously I recognise that there is a trade-off between efficiency and accountability. We would really all like to have both. Perhaps the choice is between consultation with the Electoral Commission or approval by parliamentarians. As the Minister implies, the devil is sometimes in the detail. The more detail we see and feel assured of, the less we will need to scrutinise the matter rather more thoroughly than might otherwise be the case. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 74 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule [Other elections, etc]:
[Amendment No. 75 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 79 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 80:
- Page 7, line 29, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: In light of the government amendment relating to elections, I do not think that I need to move the amendment today.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Bill reported without amendment.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:
On 9 April 2003, I issued a press statement on the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland. It contained the following paragraph:
I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report on the fourth phase of the research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict.
A multi-agency steering group was set up in 2000, following publication of the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. Its purpose was to take forward the programme to establish whether an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the baton round is available and to review the public order equipment which is presently available or could be developed in order to expand the range of tactical options available to operational commanders.
As Patten envisaged, it has been a wide-ranging and substantial programme. I am grateful to many contributors, including the police, those in government service, academics and other experts, for their sustained commitment.
This fourth report of the steering group, which I have published today, concludes that there is as yet no commercially available product that meets the criteria of an acceptable and effective and less potentially lethal alternative.
The Government will continue to keep all commercial products and technological research under review. It will ensure that those appearing to have real potential are tested and medically evaluated if appropriate.
Against this background, the Government have concluded that it would be right to continue with the development of the Attenuating Energy and Discriminating Irritant Projectiles (AEP and DIP) which represent the best opportunity to get an alternative to the L21A1 into service as rapidly as possible. The progress made in their development is set out fully in the report. While significant challenges
Work is also continuing on a second new projectile, the Discriminating Irritant Projectile. This is inevitably a longer-term project. It is by no means certain that it can be successfully achieved, although the signs are positive thus far.
We believe that there is real value in this combined programme, which has the potential to provide an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the current baton round. The Government intend to consult with a range of interested parties, including the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board.
In publishing the report today, I am inviting comments on it from interested parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
In my Statement to the House on 27 November 2003, (Official Report, col. 35WS), I announced that I had approved in principle, and subject to full trade union consultation, plans by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) to close the Army Technical Foundation College (ATFC) at Arborfield, and transfer students to, principally, the Army Foundation College (AFC) at Harrogate, where a technical training stream will be introduced. There will be other changes to the way in which junior recruits are trained within the ATRA, but these do not envisage closures of any establishments.
I can now confirm that the consultation exercise has been concluded and no serious objections have been raised to the proposal. I have therefore agreed that the closure plans may be implemented. Training at the college will therefore cease with effect from August this year, the last students being accepted at the beginning of this month (January), and the college will close in March 2005.
The principal aim of this proposal is to improve the quality and efficiency of training provided to junior entrants to the technical trades. It will not affect the Army's commitment or ability to accept suitable junior applicants on to appropriate courses at either the AFC or other ATRA junior entry establishments. I do not anticipate that this will have any major impact on the Army's recruiting plans in general.
"(4) In the event of a poll having to be postponed under the provisions of sub-paragraph (3), any expenditure incurred by a candidate shall be disregarded for the purposes of keeping within the maximum permitted expenditure."
The Committee adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.
Written Statements
"On the basis that an acceptable and effective and less lethal alternative is available, the baton round would no longer be used after the end of 2003. In the event that that has not been achieved, the Government would report on the progress of the fourth phase of the research programme and review the options for less lethal alternatives consulting widely with a range of interested parties including the Chief Constable and the Policing Board".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page