---

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister quantify the exact costs to the public purse of the whole Maxwell issue, not only this report but the legal cases that have been heard? As regards the report, can he tell us whether he believes it would have been shorter had people not been paid on an hourly basis to do it?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that it is appalling ever to say anything which might imply that the members of the legal profession could in any way be tempted by such action. The current breakdown of costs shows that the accounting inspector and his team cost £7 million and the legal inspector and the legal costs were £1.5 million, making a total of £8.5 million, excluding VAT. The investigation took a long time and was immensely complicated. It was broken up by the two incidents I mentioned: the court proceedings and the difficulty in obtaining the final evidence from Mr Kevin Maxwell. Taking into account those two factors and the sequence of events, the investigation could not have been undertaken quicker.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key issue in the case is that over £400 million has been plundered from the pension funds of a series of quoted companies? Regardless of the time taken so far, would it not be indefensible if that outrage went totally unpunished?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are two parts to the question. First, the court cases took place and judgments were reached. The inspectors rightly took the view that they should not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as those covered by the court cases. They therefore considered the other issues involved and we are considering and taking legal advice on action which should follow as regards the disqualification of directors.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any Labour Members of this House were involved with the Maxwell companies?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, after 10 years, the inspectors' review is now available to everyone. It

8 May 2001 : Column 899

sets out their views on all those who participated and comments on those whom they believe to be responsible for all these actions.

Nuclear Weapons

3 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Given that their aim of a nuclear weapon-free world would require Trident and its weapons to be destroyed, when and how they envisage this taking place.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government wish to see a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain, Britain's minimum deterrent is a necessary element of national security. We have made it clear that when we are satisfied with progress in mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear arsenals, we shall include British weapons in multilateral negotiations.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that both policies which the Government claim to support are directly opposed to each other? One policy envisages a considerable spread of nuclear weapons and the other their total abolition. Is not the Government's position in this matter in serious need of clarification? If they have any difficulty in dealing with that question, will the Government approach the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who has considerable experience in this area?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has considerable experience in this area of policy and his views are always welcome. We made it very clear when we were elected that we would retain Trident while pressing for progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament. We have made good our pledge on multilateral nuclear disarmament by abolishing the free-fall bomb in March 1998, by substantially reducing our nuclear arsenal and by greater transparency in our stockpiles of nuclear and fissile material. We have also pressed very hard internationally on this point. I believe that the Government have stuck faithfully to what they undertook to do at the time of the previous election.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assist me on one small matter of logic. If someone is against Trident and wants to destroy it, would not one expect that person to be in favour of ballistic missile defence?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been clear about what we seek to do in respect of Trident. We have not retained weapons that we do not believe are necessary. That exactly reflects the position

8 May 2001 : Column 900

articulated by the President of the United States only last week when he said that the US deterrent would be reduced to the minimum necessary. As to missile defence, today we receive in London our friends from the United States led by Steve Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser. We shall further discuss national missile defence during the course of the day, and I hope that we shall then have a clearer view of what the United States is asking us to consider.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in welcoming the US announcement of substantial unilateral reductions in the large nuclear arsenals which it possesses, I ask the noble Baroness whether she will also use her influence to persuade the Americans that a multilateral approach to a reduction in nuclear weapons, which would succeed in persuading the Russians to take similar action, would be rather more constructive.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of President Bush's announcement last week. It is possible that some political commentators did not read President Bush's announcement last week quite as carefully as I know the noble Lord will have done. The noble Lord will be aware that the United States President said that the US could and would change the size, composition and character of its nuclear forces, and that in a different part of his speech he stressed the importance that he attached to international negotiations on what was happening not only in relation to nuclear missile defence but missile defence in general. At the moment the US is considering not simply nuclear defence but other very potent chemical and biological weapons, as well as the more conventional weapons that are being developed by some rogue states throughout the world.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness attempt to remind the House of the occasions when the Government have moved at all to get some action taken about the 40,000 or so nuclear warheads which exist and which will be a real threat to the peace of the world for as long as they exist? I cannot recall the Government saying or doing anything about them.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the agreed strength and international safeguard arrangements which we put forward in September 1998, with the International Atomic Energy Authority in a monitoring role. I also remind the noble Lord that last year we pressed the matter very hard at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference, the final document of which spoke of an international unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. I believe that the Government have attempted to ensure that the threat posed by nuclear

8 May 2001 : Column 901

missiles throughout the world is taken seriously not only in this country but also by our friends--and those who may not be quite so friendly--overseas.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, in welcoming the American initiative on nuclear defence, I ask the noble Baroness what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reconcile the people of Fylingdales, and other places which may be affected, to the intrusion (if that is the right word) into their areas of this very necessary defence initiative.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to respond to the noble Lord with all the sincerity that I can muster, until we are clear exactly what the US wishes us to consider it is very difficult to be reassuring on specific points. Until there are specific proposals, we can make no specific responses. Therefore, it is very difficult to be specific with people in the locality who may be affected. If such proposals are forthcoming, they will be important not only for local people--I recognise the importance for those who live near these installations--but for all the people in the United Kingdom.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

3.7 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before we continue the Committee stage, can noble Lords be made aware of the basis on which they are to debate the Bill? The newspapers tell us that there was a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday which indicated that there would be an election. That affects the way in which our debates may proceed this afternoon. If the Government intend to go to the polls more or less a year early, having launched on a Session of Parliament with a very heavy legislative programme, which began late, I believe that noble Lords should know about it as soon as possible. I realise that if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replies he will probably tell us that he will write to us about it, but that is no good this afternoon. Perhaps the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms will be kind enough to tell us whether he knows anything now; and, if not, when he will know something.

---