| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Law Commission: Quinquennial Review
Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When the next quinquennial review of the Law Commission is to take place.[HL5490]
The Lord Chancellor: I am today announcing the start of a QQR of the Law Commission. The approach to the review will take into account the wider process of law reform and the relationship between the Law Commission and other agencies involved in that process, particularly government departments. It is expected that a final report, outlining key findings and recommendations, will be produced by the end of the year.
John Halliday CB has been appointed as Head of Review. Mr Halliday has been selected for this role because of the extent of his knowledge of the operation of government, Parliament and the Civil Service. In particular, he has experience of working with the Law Commission and of leading the fundamental review of the framework for sentencing criminal offenders in England and Wales. This resulted in the Halliday report, 2001.
Copies of the terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Retrials in Serious Criminal Cases
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What criteria have to be satisfied before a retrial can be ordered in a serious criminal case.[HL5194]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, a court can only order a retrial in a serious criminal case if (a) it is in the public interest to do so, and (b) the retrial would be conducted without unfairness to, or oppression of, the defendant.
Highland Midges
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they are taking to encourage the search for effective measures to protect people and animals from attacks by Highland midges.[HL5016]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This matter is devolved to the Scottish Executive and the noble Lord may wish to write to them about the issue.
Treasury Silver
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10 June (WA5), by what criteria the Treasury determined that the threshold above which "not to sell items . . . with the greatest historical and heritage significance" should be £1 million; and whether these criteria are those followed by all government departments; and[HL5218]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10 June (WA5), why there is such a discrepancy between the Treasury's threshold of £1 million and the open general export licence limit of £39,600 for antique silver, when the purpose of the OGEL system is to prevent the dispersal of the national heritage; and[HL5219]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 April (WA115), by what criteria the Treasury determined that these 15 items of silver should be classified as a single group under their policy "not to sell items valued at over £1 million with the greatest historical and heritage significance; and[HL5221]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 April (WA115), why the lots of Privy Council silver that were withdrawn from auction on 29 October 2001 were not classified in the same group as the 12 candlesticks and inkstands, and therefore protected by the decision "not to sell items valued at over £1 million with the greatest historical and heritage significance".[HL5222]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's questions suggest that the Treasury has adopted a policy of not selling items valued at more than £1 million. That is not the case. The candlesticks and inkstands to which he refers were excluded from the sale because some of them are in operational use, not by reference to any arbitrary threshold or other policy. My previous statement that the items were valued at more than £1 million was an observation of fact, not an explanation of a policy.
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 April (WA115), why, when the Treasury has stated that they are of "the greatest historical and heritage significance", these 15 items of silver are not classified as "heritage assets" under the guidelines provided in the Resource Accounting Manual.[HL5220]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: While the items are of the greatest significance of any item in the Treasury's silver collection, they are not of such significance as to merit classification as heritage items—which is a term used to cover items of national importance such as Stonehenge and Nelson's column.
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10 June (WA5), by what criteria the Treasury distinguishes an "antique asset" from an object classified under "fixtures and fittings".[HL5223]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no special definition of the term "antique"; it is taken as having its plain English meaning. All items which might possibly be considered as antiques are drawn to the attention of professional valuers, who confirm or reject this classification.
Life Peers
Lord Lipsey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the actuarially expected mortality rate of life Peers year by year over the next 20 years, assuming that no life Peers are appointed.[HL5437]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The aggregate mortality rates of life Peers year by year over the next 20 years, assuming that no new life Peers are appointed, is estimated as follows:
| Period | Estimated mortality rate over period per 100,000 alive at beginning of period |
| 1 July 2002–30 June 2003 | 3,589 |
| 1 July 2003–30 June 2004 | 3,658 |
| 1 July 2004–30 June 2005 | 3,733 |
| 1 July 2005–30 June 2006 | 3,814 |
| 1 July 2006–30 June 2007 | 3,901 |
| 1 July 2007–30 June 2008 | 3,994 |
| 1 July 2008–30 June 2009 | 4,094 |
| 1 July 2009–30 June 2010 | 4,201 |
| 1 July 2010–30 June 2011 | 4,316 |
| 1 July 2011–30 June 2012 | 4,443 |
| 1 July 2012–30 June 2013 | 4,580 |
| 1 July 2013–30 June 2014 | 4,725 |
| 1 July 2014–30 June 2015 | 4,880 |
| 1 July 2015–30 June 2016 | 5,047 |
| 1 July 2016–30 June 2017 | 5,227 |
| 1 July 2017–30 June 2018 | 5,418 |
| 1 July 2018–30 June 2019 | 5,624 |
| 1 July 2019–30 June 2020 | 5,839 |
| 1 July 2020–30 June 2021 | 6,062 |
| 1 July 2021–30 June 2022 | 6,295 |
The aggregate mortality rates shown in the table give the numbers of expected deaths over the period shown, assuming 100,000 people alive at the beginning of the period. Since it is assumed that no new life Peers are created, the average age of those remaining increases over time and hence the aggregate mortality rate for those remaining also rises.
The mortality rates shown in the table have been calculated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with those used to project the numbers of life Peers at each 1 July for the period 1 July 2002 to 1 July 2012 assuming that no new life Peers are created, given in the written reply of 10 June 2002 to Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, to the Lord Chancellor (WA2).
Criminal Cases in Consequence of 1994 Bomb Explosions at Embassy of Israel and Balfour House
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government: How many instances of human error affecting full disclosure occurred and when, both at first instance and on appeal, in the criminal cases tried in consequence of the bomb explosions on 26 Juy 1994, at the Embassy of Israel and Balfour House; and whether anyone has been disciplined on account of these errors.[HL5196]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): The appellants in this matter have petitioned the House of Lords for leave to appeal. Whether leave to appeal will be granted is under active consideration. As such it is inappropriate at this stage to comment on matters which may in due course be aired in court.
Local Government
Lord Fearn asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What monitoring of local government workings, where a cabinet system has been introduced, has been undertaken; and, if monitoring has taken place, what are the findings.[HL4688]
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister maintain a record to monitor the implementation by local authorities under the Local Government Act 2000 of their new constitutions, including those authorities operating or planning to operate executive arrangements involving a cabinet.
According to the information which local authorities have provided:
- as of 11 July 2002, 383 local authorities have implemented a new constitution, with the remaining three planning to implement by the end of 2002; 316 authorities are operating executive arrangements involving a leader and cabinet; 10 local authorities are or will be operating executive arrangements involving a directly elected mayor and cabinet; one local authority will be operating executive arrangements involving a directly elected mayor and cabinet; the remaining 59 authorities are operating the alternative form of arrangements available under the Act involving a streamlined version of the committee system. One of these will be holding a referendum on whether to move to arrangements involving a directly elected mayor and cabinet executive, having received a valid petition from local people which requires such a referendum.
In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently let a contract to a consortium involving Manchester University, Birkbeck College London, Goldsmith College London and Salford University, to undertake a five-year evaluation of the new council constitutions policy, including the effectiveness of executive arrangements. Results of this evaluation are not yet available.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |