| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I cannot respond specifically to the noble Earl because such matters are for NICE to consider in order to develop its own methodology and hence to offer advice. I cannot answer also because the work being undertaken by NICE in relation to beta interferon is still under way. Of course many factors have to be taken into account by NICE; that is for the institute to do. As I said, it is for NICE to set the methodology, not the Government.
32 County Sovereignty Movement
2.47 p.m.
Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will designate the 32 County Sovereignty Movement as a proscribed international terrorist organisation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, a clear distinction needs to be made between the expression of political attitudes, opinions and beliefs and the actual commission or instigation of terrorist crime. The Real IRA remains a proscribed organisation. The Government believe that the Real IRA and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are inextricably linked. However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, the Government assess that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not concerned in terrorism, as defined in statute.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He mentioned the
evidence available on this matter. On 18th May this year the United States designated the 32 County Sovereignty Movement as a foreign terrorist organisation and then proscribed it. Following the events of 11th September, the movement has been recertified. That was done at least in part based on evidence supplied by Her Majesty's Government. Why do not Her Majesty's Government take similar action here?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legislative framework in place in the United States is quite different and distinct from the legislative framework in place in the United Kingdom. An organisation can be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Real IRA is so proscribed. In this country it is a criminal offence to raise funds for an organisation concerned in terrorism. However, in the United States the legislation in place against fund-raising requires a statutory step to be taken. Thus a different legislative framework brings about the same legal conclusions.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the most practical action that our Government could take in seeking to undermine the work of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and its affiliated organisations would be to follow the example of the Bush Administration and to place a ban on its fund-raising activities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the ban on fund-raising activities in the United States is in the context that I have already described. It is not unlawful to raise funds for purposes which are not terroristic. I repeat, in this country it is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to raise funds for the purposes of the encouragement or the pursuance of terrorism.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the Government have any indication that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is passing any funds to the Real IRA?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know of no sufficiently admissible evidence which would sustain a criminal charge.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in this very serious situation it would be wise for all noble Lords to be very cautious about what they say?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. However, my experience in this House is that noble Lords are extremely responsible in the questions that they put and in the way that they approach these matters generally.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I find the noble and learned Lord's answers slightly confusing. I hope that he has been briefed. I assume that he has been. Is he aware that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, under its chairman, Mr Mackey, held an event one evening, in a pub in London, for the purpose of raising
funds? Should not these people have been prevented from raising funds? Should not they have been arrested? They are well known, they are known about and the event was widely known about.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the event to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred. It is not an offence to raise funds in this country for political purposes. It is an offence under the Terrorism Act, punishable, on my recollection, by 10 years' imprisonment, to raise funds for criminal terroristic activity. Your Lordships can rest content that there is ample in the armoury of the law of this country to deal with all aspects of the terrorism that we are discussing.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, in circumstances such as the rather delicate ones that we are in at the moment, it is quite useful on occasions to have a proxy organisation with which to negotiate? Certainly the recent demise of the UDP means that we now have no effective conduit to the UDA, which is currently the most violent Protestant paramilitary association at work in Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that a proposition such as the noble Lord's, taking great care and caution and recognising that one is compromising on these occasions—and no one wishes to do that—is sometimes useful. However, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not in that category. It is a despicable organisation and is sufficiently capable of being controlled by the present law. I agree with the general thrust of the noble Lord's point. However, I do not put the 32 County Sovereignty Movement in that category, headed and founded as it was by those who are well known to your Lordships.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that the legal basis of terrorism does not apply to the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. Can he say what description it would have, especially in view of the question of my noble friend Lord Glentoran about fund raising?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord must have misheard me. I said nothing of the sort. I have said several times today that any movement in this country is subject to the law. Proscribed organisations are the subject of distinct laws because it is a particular offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation. Other organisations which unlawfully raise funds for terroristic criminal purposes are subject to the Terrorism Act 2000, as are individuals who partake in such activities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the distinction between international terrorism and other kinds of terrorism which is found in the Bill currently before the House does not apply to the power and proscription contained in the 2000 Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right.
National Health Service: Funding
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have to raise taxes in order to increase United Kingdom health spending to the level in the euro-zone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor has made it clear that decisions on tax will be taken as part of the normal Budget process. New budgets and targets for health spending for 2004-05 and 2005-06 will be announced when the Spending Review 2002 reports next year.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Given that the Health Secretary described the National Health Service on television as a command and control system, what plans do the Government have to make the NHS more locally accountable and user friendly to both staff and patients? Should not the discussions centre around how to facilitate medical practice rather than how funding constraints may be applied?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the approach to the 2002 Spending Review, we have done something that has not been done in the health service since 1948. We have commissioned Mr Derek Wanless, from outside the health service, to produce an independent review on the funding of the health service. He has given his preliminary results, which were previewed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, but his major analytical report will be published in April next year and will be an input to the spending review. The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, will, of course, form part of that review.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer previewed only a small part of Mr Wanless's report, which also contained a damning indictment of the present condition of the National Health Service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had hoped that we would not talk about the damning indictment of the condition of the health service because that goes back over many years, including the period of the previous government. It is certainly true that at the present time the health service is under financed. That has been the situation for very many years and action is required in terms of both resources and reforms of the health service itself.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page