Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2009

My Lords, I am pleased to support this legislation, which will give the trustees and users of community halls across Northern Ireland a much needed boost. Those who once had the unenviable burden of trying to prove that their community hall or meeting place, which was most likely in an isolated rural setting, had been attacked by three or more people, often in the dead of night, should now have one less hurdle to jump if their hall is attacked. Since 1977, one feature of the criminal damages compensation system in Northern Ireland dictated that, for criminal damage of more than £200, a chief constable’s certificate was required to receive compensation. The most difficult part of that process was proving how many perpetrators had carried out the attack. To satisfy the criteria, you had to prove either that three people had carried it out or that one individual had done so on behalf of a proscribed organisation. In rural Northern Ireland, that was and still proves to be an almost impossible task. As a result, not-for-profit community halls were faced with unbearable repairs and limited resources and, as time passed, insurmountable insurance premiums that inevitably led to the closure of many necessary facilities that offered a much needed focal point in their local community. This amendment to the criminal damage legislation is regrettably necessary simply because such attacks are not rare. When the Northern Ireland Assembly considered this legislation before producing its report for Parliament’s consideration, representatives of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland gave a breakdown of attacks on their halls from 1971. The total was almost 300 attacks throughout that period. In 2007, a time of peace in the Province, 28 Orange halls were attacked. There were four major incidents, and in a fifth incident a JCB was driven through a set of gates. A further three halls were completely destroyed and razed to the ground. Such attacks are undoubtedly politically motivated and have continued since that time. As a result, members and the local community at large have been frustrated in their attempts to socialise both culturally and religiously. Regardless of one’s political beliefs, that should be abhorred and condemned. That is why the legislation will have a very positive effect. Until we reach the stage at which people no longer feel motivated to carry out such attacks, we will be in a position to ensure that they do not succeed in their aim of closing halls and removing facilities from those who wish to use them. Finally, I commend the Government for the sensible way in which they have approached this legislation. They have maintained its focus, refused to allow the creation of public insurance of the first instance and removed the original sunset clause that was proposed. I support the order.