Public Disorder

Lord Empey Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Hackney was where I grew up and later served as a councillor, mayor and MP. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Hackney has suffered enormously over the past few days and it is not alone. Does the Minister accept that we ought to be able to survey the issues which have been brought up here today in depth? When does she have it in mind that Parliament should be reconvened to have a proper debate? Does the Minister also recognise, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath does, that several people in all parties are now calling for the police cuts to be abandoned? Those were always unwise but, in particular, do they not send exactly the wrong signal at this moment?

[Lord Empey]

My Lords—

[Lord Imbert]

My Lords, may I say how much I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement today? In particular, I welcome the fact that the leaders of the Opposition and the Government are united in condemning this thuggery and violence. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the reduction in police numbers next year and, as we have understood it, there is to be no change in that. The police know that they have got to play their part in the reduction of finances spent on law and order. They will complain about that, but they will get on with it and do it.

However, the police cannot understand why, having seen the result of a recent YouGov poll showing that 65 per cent of those polled felt that the election of police and crime commissioners was unacceptable, we are prepared to spend £50 million to £200 million on that experiment, which risks extremist political individuals being elected as those commissioners. Accepting that the Government are going to do that, could that £50 million to £200 million—whatever the amount is—be spent on ensuring that we have adequate police officers, since next year is Olympic year and the police will need all the resources that they can have then? As I say, police officers will do it and will be there. They will run faster to stand still but as next year is Olympic year, although police will be there for that and any disturbances, there will have to be a reduction in the investigations of child abuse, domestic violence and other police responsibilities. We must accept that they are to be reduced and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I indicate that, with the usual channels’ agreement, this is a flexible day and we will extend the time a little for Back-Benchers, who are striving to be brief, which is most helpful. It could be useful for those who have been waiting for some time if I suggest that we take the next four—they may be the last four; we will see how we go—in the following order: the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Elton and Lord Corbett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, coming, as I do, from a part of the United Kingdom that is well used to public disorder and riots, can I say that we were extremely shocked at what we have seen? I urge noble Lords not to take solace in reliance on water cannon or plastic baton rounds because they are limited to fixed-point disputes. This type of guerrilla rioting will not be dealt with by that means. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, touched on a moment ago, is it not the case that despite us being a sophisticated, advanced country more than 20 per cent of our population is basically illiterate and many thousands of young people have no skills? Those two things are component parts of the solution. Will the Government revisit the skills issue? A lady on television said that our problem was values. It is a combination of those things but the lack of skills and literacy are clearly important parts.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I was not going to say anything but I have been slightly provoked into doing so by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. It is very dangerous to talk of membership of this House as being a job. It is not a job; it is a calling to public service. It is also very dangerous to talk in terms of attendance as measuring the effectiveness or otherwise of a Member of your Lordships’ House. There are so many Members in this place—it was a sub-theme of our debate last week that this was the case—who are here because of what they have achieved outside and because of the knowledge, experience and expertise that they can bring to our proceedings. That is the essence of your Lordships’ House.

Noble Lords will know that I do not wish to see significant change in the manner of composition of this House. I, of course, accept that the number of Members is an issue and I welcome the thoughtful and constructive comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt and his committee. Clearly these things have to be examined by all of us. It has to be recognised that at some time each one of us should seek leave of absence. It is not retirement, nor should it be provided with a consolation prize of dining rights and Library access, even though it might, as a courtesy, be good to have that. We have to face up to these issues. We certainly should not be dictated to by arbitrary retirement ages. There are those in the House, far, far, older than I, who make a magnificent contribution to our proceedings, sometimes regularly and sometimes less so, but when they speak the House listens. One has only to cite the example of the remarkable speech last week of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to illustrate that fact. This is an issue that must be dealt with extremely carefully and sensitively. Please let none of us be seduced into talking of our presence here as holding a job.

[Lord Empey]

A few years ago, it was decided in Northern Ireland to reduce the number of councils and to reduce the number of councillors. At that stage, it was advanced that, in order to encourage older members to retire, a financial reward would be worked out on the basis of £1,000 per year of service, or something to that effect. Local government reform was very slow to come about and eventually, about a year ago, it stalled, and that coincided with the financial restraints that we are all facing. The effect of that was that the old councils were re-elected last month, and those councillors who were being encouraged to leave hung on like grim death in the hope that the financial rewards would be forthcoming. My concern is that while the idea that there may be a reward in respect of retirement is out there, who in their right mind, except the most public spirited, is going to come forward?

I have to say to the Chairman of Committees that that issue needs to be resolved immediately because as long as it is possible for people to believe that they will receive a financial reward, there is a high prospect that they will not put their names in the hat. That issue needs resolving immediately otherwise the effect of this discussion will be that nobody will come forward.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, no one will be surprised if I say how important I believe this debate is and how warmly I pay tribute to the Chairman of Committees and to the Procedure Committee for bringing forward the subject on which there has always been extensive debate, but very little decision. I say to my noble friend Lord Elton that I have been enjoying myself reading through back copies of Hansard from the 1950s and found some significant contributions on this very subject from his late father Lord Elton. I commend them because they demonstrate exactly why it is so difficult for us to reach a decision.

First, I must pay tribute to the other members of the group that I had the honour of chairing, in particular to my namesake the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We have a wonderful life together because he is constantly being upbraided for comments I have made and, if I may say so, so am I for comments that he has made. On this occasion, we came to a unanimous view.

Much of some of the last few speeches was about the financial implications, but all of us on the Leader’s Group were united that there must be a rule: not a penny more. The public would not accept it if we were to spend a great deal of taxpayer’s money in making sure that people had an incentive to retire. If I may answer some of the questions asked in the debate, the Procedure Committee’s report states:

“We have not considered … the financial aspects of any scheme for voluntary retirement, which, were the House to agree to this report, would be a matter for the House Committee”.

Therefore, I am not sure we should occupy a great deal of important time by debating this issue at this stage because we are not asked to decide it.

What we have come forward with for the first time ever is a scheme to allow Members of this House to retire with honour and dignity. I want to say a few words about that, but I also want to pay tribute to the other members of the Leader’s Group and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Leader of the House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who initiated this whole debate, to the nearly 100 Members of this House who have spent a great deal of time and effort putting forward their views in debate or in correspondence with the Leader’s Group and to Mary Ollard who did so much fine work in bringing together all that we decided.