| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Liberal Democrats had a number of concerns when provisions were debated during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Police Reform Act 2002 and, in particular, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This Act, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will remember, was pushed through Parliament in the days before dissolution, just before the May 2005 general election, and did not receive adequate scrutiny. It was a very large Act.
We have a number of concerns relating to the order. The first relates to the arrest provisions contained in Article 15. While we do not object in principle to the simplification of the criteria for arrest, we are concerned that this article grants too
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC389
In addition, we are concerned that there is considerable scope for abuse of these provisions and that they may be applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion against certain sectors of the community such as, for example, ethnic minorities. Article 5 of the convention does not permit arbitrary procedures for arrest. Can the Minister assure us that the provisions will, at the very least, be monitored and reviewed by the Government?
We are also concerned that giving officers the power to arrest for a minor offence could lead to a higher number of arrests of children and young people. It would be very useful to have a system to analyse the effect of this provision on young people.
We very much welcome the provisions in Article 18 of the order, which amend the current definition of an arrested juvenile under PACE from a person under the age of 17 years to a person under the age of 18 years. That will rectify the disparity between the extension of the youth justice system to 17 year-olds under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and their continued treatment as adults under PACE. This was in contravention of domestic law under the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and international standards, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, or Beijing rules, which define children as anyone up to the age of 18 years. It is right that 17 year-olds are afforded the same safeguards and protections as juveniles. We are pleased that the Government have recognised that, although I am disappointed that it will not come into force until some time in the future.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear my concerns about the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 which lower the authorisation level from a superintendent to an inspector for the taking of intimate and non-intimate samples without consent. I remember being very concerned about these when we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House. I never won my battle on that issue, but I seek the Minister’s
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC390
Finally, the provisions in Articles 31 and 36 on photographing suspects and taking their footprints are also problematic. Under the present PACE codes, additional safeguards should be in place when the young or vulnerable are required to undergo any intrusive act at the request of a constable. If young or vulnerable people are taken to a police station for those activities to be undertaken, the requirement is usually that an appropriate adult is with them. Those protections appear to go out of the window under the new provisions. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance.
Lord Trimble: The Minister will no doubt be glad to hear that I do not intend to comment on the detail of the order. I just want to unburden myself of some general observations.
I am delighted that the legislation is bringing Northern Ireland into line with the provisions currently available in England and Wales. That is highly desirable as a general principle. Northern Ireland is a small place; we are not going to generate an awful lot of litigation or experience on any procedures that are operating there in and of itself. Furthermore, most of the media that people consume in Northern Ireland are national media, so their knowledge, expectations and experience in terms of dealing with authorities, particularly on a matter as important as policing, are largely conditioned by national sources of information. They are not likely to be aware of local divergences. For that general consideration, it is most unwise to have any significant variation in the law, particularly where authorities such as the police and others are interacting with ordinary people, unless there are good, compelling reasons for there to be a variation. As a general point, that applies particularly in criminal law but also in a number of other areas. It is highly desirable that the law is kept in step, particularly when we are dealing with a legal system that is fundamentally the same as that in England and Wales.
That leads to observations that I have made many times before and are on record, if anyone cares to look at them. It is a disgrace that the law in Northern Ireland is not kept up to date. Mind you, those who have carriage of this issue in Northern Ireland probably think that they have done a really good job, in that there is a gap of only two and five years between the passing of the English legislation and them managing to stagger forward with their own Northern Ireland equivalent, which is exactly the same and could have been copied in the course of a day or two by anyone familiar with the legislation. But they probably are pleased that they have managed to achieve this. I do not believe that they have any cause for congratulation; in fact, the delays in this are quite inexcusable.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that this should have been debated as a Bill. Yes, the Bills in which it should have been debated were the equivalent pieces of legislation for England and Wales. It would not have been difficult to have introduced into those Bills amendments for Northern Ireland at the same
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC391
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may say on a personal level—although one is always speaking for the Government—that I agree very much with the thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. I found it difficult to understand in the year that I was a direct rule Minister, in terms of legislation, why we could not make additions to England and Wales Bills—not UK-wide Bills, due to the Scottish legal system. There are many arguments as to why you should follow one route or another—I freely admit that—and the Secretary of State has tried on some occasions to try to get Northern Ireland material added into England and Wales Bills. It does not always go down well with the usual channels, because of the size of the Bill. They do not like big Bills, which may take some time. There is also the point relating to those in Belfast who want to protect the integrity of Northern Ireland’s statute book. I fully understand that.
That is a pity, because, in many ways, the operation of the police has changed. I remember PACE being introduced when I was a constituency Member of Parliament. I got the message that it was the way that the police went about their job; there was a big change and a lot of training was carried out. By and large, you would expect the same country to have the same set of rules, so that you would know where you stood and what the powers were. To that extent, I apologise on behalf of the Government for the delay in updating. I certainly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others for bringing this legislation forward in this way. We much regret that and there has to be better way of legislating for Northern Ireland and we have made a commitment in terms of devolution that I repeat now—although this would not be a matter for the Assembly—we wish to find another way of legislating in Westminster. We have to do that and it is not fair to people who represent opinion in Northern Ireland, as noble Lords do here, or Members of the other place.
In answer to the question asked on this order by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, it is only on the issue of the 17 year-old that Northern Ireland is now ahead of England and Wales, although as the noble Baroness said, it will not come into force straight away. The chances are that it will come into force in Northern Ireland before England and Wales. That is the only divergence, it is basically a matter of bringing the laws up to date.
5 pm
The Police Service of Northern Ireland has already undertaken extensive training programmes to bring officers up to date with the new powers and the revised codes of practice. Training is currently being
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC392
I say to the noble Baroness that, where there are changes—for example, from superintendent to inspector levels—those will have to be checked and monitored and proper training will have to be effected. There is a good reason for that. As I said, it mirrors what has happened in England and Wales. I fully accept that such a move could be treated with a degree of healthy scepticism but it is important to look at how it works in practice.
The police are not free agents. The noble Baroness referred to the articles on powers of arrest and, although she did not express it in this way, from the way she spoke, anyone would think that the police will be arresting people willy-nilly. That is not the case. Their actions are incredibly circumscribed and, of course, they will operate under the codes of practice, so challenges can be made.
However, I fully accept that there has to be adequate training. I am assured that that is taking place and that there will be adequate monitoring and a review of these changed powers. Ultimately, this House and the other place can be certain that the legislation will be operated in the way that Parliament intended, and I think that it will be subject to review by the Select Committees in the other place.
As I said, this is a modest change. I referred to the major changes and to the fact that many are minor technical changes, but they will improve the situation in Northern Ireland. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The legislation will be monitored and we will be able to assess the practicalities and fairness of the new scheme.
Lord Lyell: I shall try not to take more than 30 seconds of the Minister’s time, but I missed something in his admirable summing up of the enormous care that is taken by police officers and others on the ground. Can he confirm that continual training might be needed in the special case of Northern Ireland, perhaps on a six-monthly basis? The Police Service of Northern Ireland is very flexible in its outlook and training, but will any minor glitches or problems be corrected fairly quickly? That is of particular importance in Northern Ireland—perhaps more so than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I was very grateful for the Minister’s kind words and clarity in his winding up but that one small thing came to mind. I seem to remember in Northern Ireland a reference to the mouse that roared, and I am that mouse, asking a simple question. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that point for me, either straight away or in writing.
Lord Rooker: If I have not answered the noble Lord’s question, I shall be more than happy to drop him a note. For historical reasons that people in this Room know far better than I do, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has gone through changes in processes and working practices which, by force of circumstance, are far different from those on the
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC393
Lord Glentoran: Is there a significant cost to the introduction of these provisions?
Lord Rooker: That is a very good question. I should imagine it is costing an absolute bomb—these things always do—but I do not have a figure. Nothing comes free. This is not done to save money, I am fairly certain of that. I will be happy to check to see whether the cost can be codified, compared with what happened in England and Wales. The notes say that,
“The measures in the Order are not expected to impose any material cost to business, the public or the Exchequer”,
so my saying it would cost a bomb is obviously inoperable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Street Works (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007
5.06 pm
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Street Works (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.
The noble Lord said: I expect this to be incredibly controversial; I know how controversial going around and digging up the roads can be. The idea is that we want to bring a bit of order to it. The purpose of the order is to introduce stronger powers for the control of street works, with the aim of minimising disruption and reducing traffic congestion. It seeks to introduce provisions for the control of street works—I have to keep a straight face now—broadly in line with those already in force in England and Wales—as though they were perfect; I am sorry, I have to be professional about this—by the enactment of Parts 3 and 4 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
I will comment briefly on the order and say a few words about the detailed provisions, but I will not detain the House too long. The order includes the power to introduce a scheme requiring utilities to obtain permits before they could carry out street works. Conditions could be attached to the permit: it could be a requirement, for example, that only one
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC394
Other new measures include a requirement for utilities, in certain circumstances, to resurface roads or to contribute to the costs of carrying out that work, and a restriction on certain street works for a prescribed period following the completion of substantial street works. After all, how many times have we seen streets dug up? There is a lot of disruption but everyone thinks, “Well, it’s got to be done”—but then, blow me, a couple of weeks later the same street is being dug up again. That is very frustrating for motorists, pedestrians and others who use our roads, so the power is being given to prevent that kind of thing happening. Maximum levels of fines could be increased for certain offences and a range of fixed penalty offences created, as well as a charging mechanism by which utilities would pay for the duration of their occupation of a road and for overrunning any agreed period of occupation. The public consultation revealed support for the proposals, with only the utility companies not supportive of all of the proposed measures. That tells us we may have got this right on behalf of the public.
We recognise that utilities provide services that are essential for the economic and social well-being of Northern Ireland, but we need to provide a better system for regulating the way in which roads are dug up and the number of times it can happen. The order will enable us to do that. We intend to put in place a system that is fair to the people who have put in the services, to those who want to use them and to road users who often face a great deal of disruption. Our intention is not to prevent work being carried out—far from it—but to ensure that it is done in a more efficient and better co-ordinated fashion.
The Government are confident that the proposed new powers should give us a more efficient system for managing street works and that, as a result, there will be a reduction in the disruption and congestion suffered by road users. I fully hope to see that put into practice when I visit Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Street Works (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for the professional way in which he explained the order to us. I read it very much with tongue in cheek; I went through the Explanatory Memorandum in detail. I spent many years in the construction industry, which is closely associated with street works of one sort of another, and pound signs were bouncing around in front of my eyes. The contractors will find great excuses for getting control of a little more money for special restrictions. I can think of all sorts of ruses that the construction industry could dream up to find
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC395
I would like to know how the industry as a whole will be instructed; as the Minister said, the provisions are very detailed. How will the industry be inducted into it and how will complaints be dealt with? I imagine that the process of letting contracts will have to be changed to ensure that everything is signed for, understood and undertaken by contractors that have taken on public works in this field. Quite a lot of things need to happen on the ground, administratively and in practice, as a result of the order. Having said that, as a user of the roads in Northern Ireland—I do not have a car in this country—I am delighted that some order will be put in place. It is very necessary because we have some huge infrastructure schemes at the moment. Oil lines and gas pipelines are going backwards and forwards across the country, and when there is more capital investment in the water service, water lines will be renewed. All that will have a major impact on traffic flows at varying times in various parts of the country.
In principle, I support the order. In practice, I shall have my tongue in my cheek while I see how well the Government are able to make the order work.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: The Minister will be pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the order. We support its main objectives to achieve more efficient management of street works carried out by the utilities and, we hope, to reduce disruption levels. We also hope that the proposed increases in the powers of the department will help in a more co-ordinated and cohesive approach to the management of street works.
We recognise the concerns expressed by the utilities companies in Northern Ireland. There is concern about increasing bureaucracy and costs, particularly if those costs impact on consumers’ bills or cause difficulties to the utilities companies in providing their services to all parts of Northern Ireland. Can the Minister reassure the Committee on that point?
5.15 pm
Lord Kilclooney: I apologise for being absent—I was at another committee meeting. The provision is very welcome, as there is nothing more irritating in Northern Ireland than to see a road that has been reconstructed and resurfaced and then, within a few weeks, to see a public authority come in to excavate again.
In some cases, the order gives total powers to the department that President Chavez of Venezuela would be delighted to have. It says:
and that is fine; but then it goes further and refers to,
- “a restriction on the execution of street works for a prescribed period following completion of substantial street works”.
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC396
We do not know what that prescribed period is. I hope that common sense will prevail and that it will not be 100 or 50 years. What is the maximum?
The order refers to undertakers, but who are they? Is this simply directed against construction contractors or is it directed against former public authorities, such as the NIE and British Telecom? Will it apply to public authorities, such as the Water Service? The “prescribed period” may have to be changed following the issuing of the order: there could be an emergency in the road, such as a burst water main or sewage pipeline. Is there any provision for emergencies in the order? Once the prescribed period has been designated, how does one get round it if there is an emergency?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with the measure in principle—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes, but. Perhaps in saying that I agree with it in principle, I should say that I have some admiration for the road service. Over the years, I have seen the efficiency of the service increase, and I pay tribute to people such as Malcolm McKibbin and Geoff Allister, as well as my own local engineer, Pat Doherty. They have done very well. With the major road works on the west side of Belfast, which affect me every time I come into the city, minimising the disruption is something that we appreciate. Perhaps this is the place to recognise that.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |