| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Palestine: Poverty
11.28 am
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Department for International Development will contribute up to £12 million to a new temporary international mechanism which will help to meet Palestinian basic needs. In April, the UK gave £15 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which provides housing, education and health services to Palestinian refugees. Most of the terrible suffering is caused by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, so we take every opportunity to call on both sides to end the violence.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, but does she not agree with me that there will have to be a serious international effort to stop the violence if a humanitarian crisis is to be avoided? Does she agree that real pressure has to be brought to bear on the Palestinians by the international community to release the captured young Israeli soldier and to stop the Qasem rocket attacks on Israel, and that, at the same time, serious international pressure has to be brought to bear on the Israelis to restore the power supply to the Palestinians, which has been cut, and to facilitate vital international aid reaching Palestinian women and children to avoid real and continuing hardship?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government would entirely agree with that position. This is an absolutely ghastly but intensely political situation which is having dire consequences for women and children in Gaza. They have little electricity, diminishing food supplies and a reduced supply of water. They are in need of humanitarian aid, but the aid cannot get through. The international community must strongly encourage both sides, as my noble friend suggests, to find a political and diplomatic solution. The EU and G8 have urged both sides to act with restraint, but we also urge our American friends to put pressure on the Israeli Government and our Arab friends to put pressure on the Palestinians to end the current violence.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, all three conditions set for contact with the democratically elected Hamas Government have now been breached by the Israelis—namely, a recognition of one’s neighbour, renunciation of violence and acceptance of existing agreements—most particularly by the recent deliberate attack on Gaza’s power supply. Will the Minister urgently consider changing our attitude towards Hamas Ministers, or at least those Hamas
6 July 2006 : Column 361
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government will not negotiate or have discussions with Hamas Ministers until Hamas recognises the state of Israel, renounces violence and recognises the agreements that have already been made. Although the attacks being made by Israel are unutterably ghastly and we condemn them, we should not forget that Hamas wants to obliterate the state of Israel and has openly welcomed the attack by a suicide bomber. Both sides are to blame, and we have to bring both sides together.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the Minister has just said. Does she not agree that the attack on 25 May which resulted in the capture of Corporal Shalit was a premeditated project that had been going on for some three months and was directed by the Hamas people, who are not actually in Gaza? Therefore, they are trying to cut off their noses to spite their faces, because it happened right by a crucial crossing near the kibbutz. The lifelines that will help the Palestinians in Gaza in alleviating deprivation and hardship are going to be disrupted because of their own actions. The media here do not seem to understand that. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, in respect of the capture of Corporal Shalit, I merely say that we have pressed the Palestinian president to do all that he can to achieve his release and we have called on those who are holding him to release him. However he was captured, in whatever circumstances, he should not be held hostage now. We want to ensure his secure release as soon as possible.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, no one could be unmoved by the plight of the Palestinians and their desperate need for humanitarian aid, but they are being treated like pawns in a game by Hamas terrorist groups, whose leadership lies not in Gaza but in Damascus, well away from the action, which makes it very difficult for the humanitarian aid to come in. What action are the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on the Syrian Government to expel that terrorist organisation?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that the Government both bilaterally and through the EU and G8 are doing what they can to ensure that proper pressure is exerted on the Syrian Government to do exactly that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I was in Gaza last year and have been to the West Bank this year. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, says, is absolutely true. The circumstances there cannot be described adequately. I put it to the Government that of course Hamas and the
6 July 2006 : Column 362
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government’s view on the settlements is well known. We are doing everything possible to ensure that there is a contiguous Palestinian state. We are also working continually with our allies to press for a proper solution to this problem. However, the immediate problem is the current violence, and we have to work with our international partners to end it now.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is this not really a humanitarian and not a political question? The noble Baroness mentioned UNRWA and what we are doing in the way of relief and short-term measures, but what about employment? Surely it is the most urgent priority that we create jobs and the training to back them up.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords, employment is important, but at the moment I suggest that the security situation in the West Bank and Gaza is such that creating employment is extremely difficult. DfID and the Treasury are continuing work that began before the elections on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s initiative to try to get the private sector to invest in Gaza, but in the current situation that is very difficult.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
11.36 am
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2006
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Amos on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6 July 2006 : Column 363
Police and Justice Bill
11.37 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Conditional cautions: types of condition]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 93:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 93 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. We now return to the issue that we broached briefly on Tuesday evening, a subject which the Government refer to as an extension of summary justice, whereas what is happening in practice is an extension of administrative punishment.
The Secretary of State has the power to increase by secondary legislation the maximum penalty that may be imposed when a conditional caution is applied. At present the maximum of community punishment is 20 hours. The maximum fine is either one-quarter of the amount of the maximum that could be imposed in the court—that is, a quarter of £5,000 for the greatest offence involved—or a maximum of £500, whichever of the two sums is the lower. That is the position which the Government have provided for in the Bill as drafted. My Amendment No. 93 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to change the 20 hours by order. Amendment No. 95 would remove the power to change the financial maximum by order, and Amendment No. 96 is consequential.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential expansion of the power to impose punishment without the involvement of a court. The Magistrates’ Association has said this about the breadth of the powers currently proposed:
“We are very alarmed that the Secretary of State should be given powers to increase these potential penalties in the future. It opens up the possibility of more serious offences, rather than the extremely low level ones, being dealt with outside a court”.
When this matter was debated in another place the Minister sought to assure the Committee there that conditional cautions would not be used in the context of more serious crime. The Minister said:
“There is clear guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions about the kind of offences that should be subject to conditional cautions. Because the conditions are set lower than the fines and punishments that magistrates courts can impose, it clearly is not appropriate to stray into that serious crime area”.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 23/03/06; col. 167.]
But the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidance on conditional cautions does not provide the assurance
6 July 2006 : Column 364
- “there will be indictable only offences, [i.e. offences which are so serious they may only be tried in the Crown Court], in which a caution is appropriate because of the offence or the offender”.
That is quoted from the CPS website, section 3.
I note that Norman Brennan, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, has described the idea of extending punitive conditional cautions as “nonsense”. He is quoted in the Daily Mail of 25 June as saying:
“What sort of deterrent is this? The Government talks about the need for common sense, and that is certainly what the public wants, but this is the opposite”.
It is important that we should listen to views expressed in those terms.
As the Minister in another place identified, the most realistic safeguard against the use of conditional cautions to deal with serious offences is a restriction upon the severity of the punitive condition that may be imposed. It is exactly for that reason that our amendment proposes that the Bill should prevent secondary legislation being used to allow more serious penalties being imposed and should contain an exhaustive list of conditions which may be included. I shall be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord what the Government propose to do in response to the recommendation at paragraph 27 of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report.
However, my concerns go far deeper than just whether or not the statutory instrument should be dealt with by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. Here we are addressing the very real issue of the potential future expansion of administrative punishment by the decision of the Secretary of State, and especially being expanded by secondary legislation. We consider that this should be undertaken only when it is proved to be necessary, effective and fair. So far I am not persuaded that Clause 15 fulfils that requirement, hence the series of groups of amendments that we have tabled—this being the first. I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I believe that this is the first Committee over which the noble Baroness the Lord Speaker has presided. If it is, I very much hope that she will enjoy the day as much as I am sure the rest of us will. I welcome her to her post.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 95 propose to remove the power of the Home Secretary to vary the maximum hours of attendance and the financial penalty that can be attached to a conditional caution. The reason for including those provisions is obvious: it is important to have a power to amend those maxima if circumstances demonstrate that they need to be changed over time. If there is not a power to deal with them in this way, it will be necessary to find a slot in primary legislation to make what would probably be small adjustments. The time of this House and of the other place to initiate primary legislation is always precious. I am therefore not able to support the amendments to remove the power to vary those, but I hope that I can none the less offer reassurance on Amendment No. 96, which proposes
6 July 2006 : Column 365
The noble Baroness has rightly reminded the Committee that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that the affirmative procedure should be used for both the power to change the maximum financial penalty and the power to amend the maximum number of hours of attendance, except where the change is solely to take account of changes in the value of money. We have considered the recommendation and propose to table an amendment on Report to meet those concerns and to take account of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said.
11.45 am
The noble Baroness has also made broader observations on the conditional cautioning powers. As I said when opening this debate in the previous sitting, it may be more economical of time if I address those remarks when we come to the clause stand part debate which I think is to follow shortly. At this point I shall only say that I do not for a moment accept the proposition that conditional cautions are nonsense, if that is indeed a correct attribution to the gentleman quoted in the newspaper to whom the noble Baroness referred. It certainly is not nonsense to have conditional cautions; they are working at the moment. The noble Baroness and I agree in principle that we need to see that what is being done is, as she says, necessary, effective and fair. I do not have any disagreement with any of those adjectives. It may transpire that we will disagree on how they apply in particular circumstances, but we do not disagree on the objective. For the time being, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: First, in quoting how Mr Norman Brennan was quoted in the Daily Mail, I hope that I made it clear that he was referring to a specific change from what appears to be the current practice to the future one. His response that the changes were “nonsense” refers particularly to the imposition of punishment as a matter of conditional cautions rather than to the current conditions of reparation and rehabilitation. His major concerns arise because conditional cautions impose punishment in the future coupled with the fact that order-making powers make it possible for a much broader range of offences to be included. We will be able to develop the point in the debate on Clause 15 stand part.
The noble and learned Lord follows the line which I suspect any Government would take: “Do not take any order-making power away from us; we want flexibility. We do not want to take up the House’s time with primary legislation”. In most cases that is a proper argument, and in many cases a solution can be found by using the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s indication that the Government intend to adopt the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation that the affirmative procedure is to be preferred. If that is the case and the fine level—the monetary punishment—can be changed by order simply to reflect changes in the value of money, it is only sensible that it should not have to be changed through the affirmative procedure.
6 July 2006 : Column 366
My broader concern is that substantial changes in how we mete out administrative punishment may not necessarily be properly carried out by an order-making process. Changes to the criminal justice system are occasionally so significant that they should not be relegated to secondary legislation. I will consider the matter very carefully over the summer months, once we have had the opportunity to debate these amendments and to discuss the matter more fully before Report. Although I am very concerned about the potential for order-making powers to be used to increase administrative punishment very widely, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 94:
“( ) Subject to subsection (3), the amount shall be commensurate with the financial resources of the offender.”
The noble Baroness said: We now approach the issue of conditional cautions from a more practical and different angle. The amendment would require that any fine imposed on a conditional caution should reflect the financial resources available to the offender. The danger is simply that, without this guarantee, the option of a conditional caution could in some circumstances be only for the rich—one law for the rich, to escape a court appearance—while the poor would be left without such a choice.
The Minister in another place sought to argue that the requirement that the suspect consents to the caution should deal with that concern. When we broached the first relevant group of amendments on Tuesday evening, the noble and learned Lord immediately referred to the fact that conditional cautions are imposed only with consent. We think that that can be a rather ingenuous argument because it misses the point. The person who cannot afford to pay a fine has no choice. They cannot accept a conditional caution. They have to go to court. By contrast, those with financial means will be able to buy their way out of a court appearance.
The CPS conditioning code of practice—I am sorry, I mean cautioning code of practice; perhaps it was a Freudian slip as the code is also conditioning—makes it abundantly clear that the process for agreeing to conditional cautions would not make any allowances for the ability to pay a fine. The noble and learned Lord looks puzzled. He may well be able to give a much better explanation of the code of practice than I can as it is in his immediate domain. But I quote from guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Sections 22 to 27 of the Criminal JusticeAct 2003. It states:
“There should not be any bargaining with the offender over the conditions: if he does not accept them in full, he should be prosecuted”.
The amendment simply seeks to address the risk of a two-tier system arising from the ability to impose fines on conditional cautions. It would require the offender’s financial resources to be taken into account when setting the level of the fine. That would recognise that not all offenders have the same financial resources and ability to pay a fine. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |