Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Harris of Haringey

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I must ask him the same question as I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 states:

“The Secretary of State may impose restrictions on the individual entering … a specified area”.

The Minister can prevent someone entering London —so what is the noble Lord on about?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am of course delighted to try to defend the Bill on behalf of the Minister, although I suspect that the Minister will do a very good job of that in a moment. However, my interpretation of the provision is that it is about very specific locations and particular areas—for example the Olympic park, or whatever else it might be. It is not clear that it will permit the prevention of that individual living in the city that had previously been his home. That is the point that needs to be made.

Public Disorder

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Harris of Haringey

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a former leader of Haringey Council, where I spent about 12 years of my life trying to secure the sustainable regeneration of the area of Tottenham. One of the tragedies of what has happened in the past few days is that the stigma of an area of riot has again fallen on that community, and that the efforts built up over many years are now being undermined, with businesses no longer being able to survive.

Do the Government believe that the Bellwin formula will be a sufficient response to ensure the reconstruction that will be needed? This will be of communities after the damage that has been done, and must also tackle underlying problems. Will they review the resources being made available to local government for regeneration in such areas? Will they also review the way in which the Riot (Damages) Act operates? If it would drain funds from police forces to compensate people who have been hit and damaged by the riots, that would be extremely damaging to the sustaining of police numbers in future. Finally, what advice was taken from the police service about the decision that water cannon should be made available on the mainland? It is used usually for the dispersal of large crowds, but the problem in this case was caused by small groups of people acting opportunistically.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, perhaps I may raise the issue of citizenship that was eloquently introduced by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. We must not forget that the Government propose to remove citizenship as one of the subjects in the core curriculum. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. One aspect of this highly complicated state of affairs—obviously, one cannot begin to reach conclusions at this stage—that I do not think has been referred to, and that bears on the question of people feeling part of the community and feeling a sense of civic engagement, is the commonly found set of attributes and mental positions that I have come across many times in my home town. Young people have a sense of personal insignificance and certainly a sense of civic anonymity. They have a belief that they do not belong and that they are somehow outsiders, disconnected from all the things that we cherish and seek to enhance. They also have a sense of being uncompetitive. In this brazenly materialist world, we are constantly told that if we cannot compete we are useless and worthless. I suggest that these and other issues around citizenship are at the heart of one of the deep underlying problems referred to by the Prime Minister that are present in this sad crisis.

Queen's Speech

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Harris of Haringey

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the newly appointed Ministers—in particular, my noble friend Lord McNally. I believe that what has been done by David Cameron and Nick Clegg has been in the best traditions of the history of our democracy. It has not been an easy coalition to put together. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who suggests that there should have been a further general election after the coalition agreement was published.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way but I want to correct him. I was not suggesting that there should have been a further general election; I was saying that the claim of having some stupendous mandate by virtue of adding together the percentages of two lots of votes and saying that therefore everything should pass through without dissent because of that mandate cannot be made. That argument is destroyed by the fact that both manifestos were jettisoned in the coalition agreement.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says, but talking of both manifestos being jettisoned is just unreal. The fact is that neither party won an overall majority and in coalition there plainly has to be compromise on both sides. It is as simple as that: in effect, we were commanded by the public. I found that on doorstep after doorstep people were saying, “I hope that there is a hung Parliament because it’s about time we had parties in Parliament co-operating”.

I must confess that it is with some wistfulness that I look across at the Members on the Benches opposite, because after 40 years in opposition I am not sure how it is going to feel being part of the governing party, but there we are.

I think that we still have far too many Bills—22, I believe—in the programme. It is a really deep problem for this country and our democratic process that the amount of legislation is far beyond the capacity of the culture to understand, let alone digest. Although Nick Clegg has promised a great repeal bonanza, I hope sincerely that we will think hard about the way in which we proceed in both this House and the other place.

I should like to refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when speaking on the Queen’s Speech. He referred to the prospect of election to this Chamber, saying that,

“if there is a demand for change, it must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Let me assure the House that proposals will be put before your Lordships at a formative stage”.—[Official Report, 25/5/10; col. 22.]

The key phrase there is,

“if there is a demand for change”.

I believe that the only proper, democratic way in which we can measure whether there is a demand for change in the method by which this Chamber is composed is by holding a referendum. I must be honest with the House and say that it was not until having hospitality with the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Bassam, an hour ago that I realised that it was part of the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last election that there should indeed be a referendum to consider whether or not to elect this House wholly or mainly. I believe that that is absolutely essential—primarily because we do not own this House. We are servants of the public and surely there can be no more fundamental change than to alter profoundly the way in which this place is composed. The public must decide that. Anything short of that will sell the public short. I hope that the noble Baroness, in summing up the debate, can tell the House that the Government will consider—and do so soon—the need for such a referendum.

I shall talk a little about legal aid, which is a bit of an orphan subject in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to it and my noble friend Lord Goodhart made a passing reference to it. Let us make no bones about it, legal aid has been ignored too much. It was one of the great achievements of the Attlee Government. In a country where lawmaking is out of control and one cannot move without reference to the law, which is ever more complex and all-embracing, it is a scandal that the legal aid scheme has—I cannot say “failed”—is in extreme ill health. There are deserts of legal aid in this country and they are growing. The number of solicitors’ firms willing to do legal aid declines substantially every year. I have no time to go into the specifics but I hope that the Government will do more than what is suggested in the two lines in their programme and,

“carry out a fundamental review of Legal Aid to make it work more”,

not “efficiently”, as they say, but more effectively. In that regard I hope that they will note the fact that the Law Society, I am pleased to say, has at last undertaken an in-depth review of what it calls access to justice. An 80-page interim report is now circulating throughout the legal profession for feedback. I hope that the Government will act soon and work with that review in the hope that there can be some consensual reforms. That leads into what has been said about prisons and many other things.

In the two minutes that I have left, I shall refer to the charity and voluntary sector. The gracious Speech states:

“The role of social enterprises, charities and co-operatives in our public services will be enhanced”.

I hope that it is not just in our public services that the Government will make every effort to aid and abet the wonderful voluntary sector that we have in this country—the glory in many ways of the culture of the United Kingdom. Again I suggest that we need a bit of a change of attitude by government to the voluntary sector.

Too often, with the best intentions in the world, ministries will take initiatives, often with substantial funds, and will work not through the sector itself from the bottom up but in far too impository a way. For example, I would recommend that nothing should be done nationally without the close involvement of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the umbrella body of the—what is it?—third of a million charities in this country, 90 per cent of which do not have a single paid member of staff. I suggest even more strongly that nothing, but nothing, is done towards reviving and engaging citizenship, helping charity—which often gets to the parts that the state cannot reach, namely the most vulnerable and fragile in our society—other than by working with what is there. The most vital tools are the councils for voluntary service in every city and every county in this land. They work closely with their membership—a plethora of extraordinary organisations.

In all that, I hope that there will be bureaucratic proportionality because by God there has been overkill. I hope that there will be a degree of proper risk by the state realising that sometimes you have to chance your arm, even in government, for greater prizes and returns.

Last but by no means least, I hope that the Government will realise that for every pound that they spend—let alone every pound that they cut from the charity and voluntary sector—they are not merely denying the work that was paid for but cutting off the state and its agencies from a vast input of voluntary effort, time, compassion, knowledge and contact. Please will the Government think twice, thrice and four times before cutting a penny from the voluntary sector’s budget?