| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that reform of the upper House cannot be complete until we have considered the
functions and powers as well as the composition of that House? Does he agree that the White Paper contains nothing of any significance whatever on that subject?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we can of course talk about the parliamentary aspects of reform. However, I believe that most Members of this House believe that, broadly speaking, the functions and powers of this House are correct. They operate as a check and a balance on the House of Commons. In my own view, the starting point of any consideration of the issue is not some type of bidding process about how many elected there should be, but an examination of the purpose of this House, having regard to its powers and functions. We should then ask ourselves what that tells us about the composition issue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has announced that there is to be a third stage of reform of this House. He has also said that the Labour Party will have a free vote, and that there are no politicians who can agree on this subject. Is not the greatest place of disagreement at the heart of the Government themselves, in the Cabinet, with a fundamental disagreement between the noble and learned Lord and the leader of another place, Mr Robin Cook? Therefore, is not the best possible way of seeking to resolve these differences between parties and within parties to establish with some haste a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine those issues?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord misheard me: no suggestion has come from me about a free vote, other than to invite him to conduct a free vote among his own Benches to confirm what we all know very well—the Leader of the Opposition's proposals in another place go down like a lead balloon on his own Benches. I have not announced that there will be a stage three; what I have said is that we shall be well able in time to revisit the issue of the number of elected Peers while at the same time protecting the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. If others—not the Government—were to call that stage three, that is a matter about which I am relaxed.
Afghanistan: British Detainees
3 p.m.
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What steps they are taking to ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross or British consular officials have access to all British citizens and others entitled to British protection who have been arrested in Afghanistan, whether they are held in that country or transferred elsewhere.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, British officials have had access to three British detainees held by the United States authorities at Guantanamo Bay. The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay and ICRC officials have
access to the detainees held there at any time. They also have access to detainees in Afghanistan. I further understand that a British official has also seen one British detainee in Afghanistan.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she say how many British persons are now held in Afghanistan and whether any of them are held in very bad conditions at Mazar-i Sharif? Can she also confirm that there will be no indefinite detention—that is to say, no hostage holding—and, finally, that those who may be charged with offences will be tried before British courts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we know of only two British detainees in Afghanistan. As I mentioned, one has been seen by an official. But there may, of course, be others of whom we are unaware at the moment. We shall continue to make inquiries to try to find out whether there are further British detainees held in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that the United States, or any other detaining authority, is trying to hold detainees indefinitely. Most detainees have been in custody for only a few weeks and, of course, the crucial issue is that their status has not as yet been determined. The noble Lord also asked about the issue of where a trial should be held. We should be happy for trials to be held in this country if—I stress the word "if"—that were the most effective way of pursuing a prosecution and if the United States authorities were happy to proceed on that basis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what right does the United States have to detain British citizens even for a matter of weeks on the territory of a third party state? Is not the best course of action, if it is said that these men have committed criminal offences, for the United Kingdom to request the US authorities to deliver the men up to us so that they can be tried in British courts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this really does beg difficult and, if I may say so, highly complex legal questions about the status of the detainees in the first place. The noble Lord will know that there has been a great deal of speculation in our own press and in the United States about the status of the detainees. The United States as the detaining authority still has not made a decision on that issue. I believe that I have made the British Government's position clear on the question of possible trials in Britain, but I repeat that we should be happy to do that if it were a sensible and effective way of pursuing justice and, of course, if that were something to which the United States as the detaining authority was able to agree.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this side.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, yes, it is. The noble Lord can speak in a minute. There is plenty of time.
Is it not correct that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has in fact called for the return to Britain of all British citizens arrested by the Americans and others in Afghanistan? On what grounds is he doing that? Would it not be wiser to focus just on those individuals against whom there are specific British charges or specific British evidence and for them to be returned to Britain and for the rest, who may well have committed terrible crimes against Americans or others, to be investigated and tried appropriately in the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is not quite correct to say that my right honourable friend has called for the return of British detainees to the United Kingdom. I think that the noble Lord may refer to something which I also heard on Radio 4 last week. However, I make clear to the noble Lord that what matters is where the prosecuting authorities would have an effective chance of pursuing justice—that has to be determined—and, of course, as these are almost unprecedented cases, we would wish to proceed on a basis that could be agreed with the United States.
Of course, these issues are being raised between Ministers. I have raised them myself with officials from the American Embassy in London and my right honourable friend will pursue these issues with Secretary of State Powell when he visits Washington again on Thursday. I agree with the noble Lord that these are potentially horrendous crimes. However, we must not judge what has happened. People must have a fair trial. That is absolutely fundamental to the points that are worrying the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. If I may say so, the real issues here are that there should be humane treatment, whatever the status of these individuals, and, that if they face trial, such a trial should be a fair one.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the report of the Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.
Civil Defence (Grant) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
State Pension Credit Bill [HL]
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): 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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I should say that if Amendment No. 48 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 49 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 48:
- Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment is self-explanatory. It builds on, though re-expresses, the concept in the Bill that for a married or an unmarried couple there is only one set of entitlement to state pension credit. But, importantly, it deals with who should receive that credit. The amendment proposes that in the first instance the couple should agree which of them should receive the credit, but that if they do not agree it should be paid to the person with the lower income. In practice that may mean that the credit would mainly be paid to wives or the female part of a couple as they are likely to have the lower income. But, of course, the amendment is not designed to favour the female over the male and where the male has the lower income he should receive the credit. I beg to move.
"(1) Only one member of a married or unmarried couple shall be entitled to state pension credit.
(1A) Where both members meet the conditions—
(a) they shall elect jointly which member shall receive the credit, or
(b) if they are unable to agree, the member with the lower income shall receive the credit."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page