---

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

I am grateful for the comments and general support, although I understand that it is inevitable that with a comprehensive miscellaneous order such as this one we cannot effectively do justice to all the changes. I am very upset about the issue that the noble Baroness raised on consultation. The outcome of the consultation is not yet on the website; I shall see that that is done forthwith, and apologise for that. There were 12 weeks of public consultation, although it is true that there was a low response rate, of 15 bodies. Many of those who made substantive responses gave widespread support. Only four respondents—the Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Commission for Children and Young People, the Children’s Law Centre and Include Youth—raised the issues relating to the draft order. They concentrated, as the noble Baroness would expect, on the anti-social behaviour order legislation. The Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations supported the ASBO proposals. There were some objections in principle; others were minor points of detail. To be honest, such public responses—because everyone is told when they give a response that it will be made public, so they had better say if they do not want to do so—should be available before Parliament considers legislation. I do not know the full reason why that has not been done, but it should have been done. I believe that we are doing this order in advance of the Commons, so I hope that it can be done before MPs get to work on it, or my colleague in the other place will have a pretty rough time. On the proposal to extend the ASBOs to other bodies, if we go beyond the bodies such as housing associations that we have in mind and other bodies express an issue, we shall consult widely before adding other bodies to the list. I make that absolutely clear. There will be no thought of the Secretary of State simply adding bodies to the list that can go out and get an ASBO without consultation. The issue is far too sensitive to do anything other than that. As for speed cameras, I do not know the information. It is a very sensitive and contentious issue. I saw a headline in the paper today, about how some camera had made some council a million quid. There is a real issue here, but some of the evidence that we have says that there is a 35 per cent reduction in people being killed or injured at camera sites. The cameras are at accident spots—that is where they are supposed to be. There is a 14 per cent reduction in personal injury collisions and an average reduction in speed of about 10 per cent, according to the information that I have. There is also a reduction of about two-thirds in the number of speeding vehicles. Averages are very misleading—I realise that. One camera could destroy the lot in terms of averages and give a totally false impression, but those are the figures that were put before the board. On the issue of the change of name and function of prison visitors, they have lobbied for a while for that change. It has not been forced on them. The new board will have a monitoring role in what is happening, and recourse to the prison ombudsman is still available to people. The independent monitoring boards will have a monitoring role; in fact, one of the little functions that they have from the past, which has not been used since the 19th century and which we are getting rid of, is the power of the board to provide a sanction. It is not the function of the independent monitoring board to be involved in the management of offenders—far from it. But they have requested that change, and we can understand the reasons why. On the issue of reporting restrictions and the ASBO being a badge of honour, there are no automatic reporting restrictions when an ASBO is made. The court has the discretion to impose restrictions of its own volition or on the request of the applicant or defence. Agencies applying for orders consider the issue of reporting restrictions on a case-by-case basis. To the best of my knowledge at the moment, unless it has changed over the past few days, there are only five ASBOs in force in Northern Ireland; one is on a young person and the other four are on adults. It is a small number, but it is a useful weapon—I hate to use the word—in the armoury to try to do something about anti-social behaviour, which is a nightmare for people. It is always difficult; I have had it myself. I wish we had had ASBOs when I was in the other place, because my constituents would have benefited greatly from them. Under the safe deposit boxes, Article 14, I saw a useful bit of information somewhere. My brief says, ““If pressed””. I have not been pressed, but I gather that this is a better answer than I would have been able to give the noble Baroness. In 2004–05 the Assets Recovery Agency obtained 11 customer information orders in Northern Ireland. The banks were not able to disclose as part of their compliance with those orders whether the customer had a safe deposit box. It beggars belief that we set up a very powerful body, for reasons we understand, and yet it does not have that power because the banks do not have the power to give that information. That is the reason for that measure. The noble Baroness asked me about giving evidence through live links. The accused would be required to return to Northern Ireland, but arrangements could be made by the Police Service of Northern Ireland for their protection, and court venues can be changed to provide greater security. Others can give evidence through television links and behind screens. Those are the possibilities. I apologise, because the noble Baroness raised the question about the website address on the Explanatory Memorandum. That is related to the public consultation. It should have been on there, but it is not. It shall be done forthwith, I am told—I hope by the end of the day. Any chance? It had better be there before the other House deals with it. On the transfer of young persons to adult prisons, the governor of the young offenders’ centre will recommend to the Minister that an inmate could be transferred to an adult prison. The independent monitoring board will monitor such transfers; that is the reformed board of visitors. There will be an external; it will not be done in secret. The board will know what is going on. Of course, it will be able to express any concerns about the recommendations of the governor directly to the Secretary of State, who is accountable at the end of the day. I am happy to confirm for the noble Baroness that at present blood samples cannot be taken from people who are unconscious. There has been no evidence of support there for a drink-driving charge. I remember dealing with this. It was touched on in the then-Police Reform Bill, if I remember rightly, when I was the Home Office hack. But that is not to say that everyone who is unconscious will be tested. That is not the issue—there must be reasonable grounds for testing. Under the existing arrangements in the magistrates’ courts, 17 year-olds requiring custody are sent to the young offenders’ centre where special provision is made for them. The criminal justice review recommended that this should continue to be the case when they are brought within the ambit of the youth court. So there is more than one change taking place. I have come to the end of my notes but I am not satisfied that I have answered all the noble Baroness’s questions. I will read Hansard and cause it to be read for me. Where I have not answered the questions, I will make sure that a letter is sent to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate.