| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
- Page 42, leave out lines 13 to 31 and insert—
"Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
Section 6
Power to
administer
preliminary tests
In place of subsections (2) to (5) the power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test shall apply where—
(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is committing an offence under section 92 or 93,
(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence under section 92 or 93 and still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug,
(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or
(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.
Sections 6A to 6E
Preliminary
breath test,
impairment test,
and drug test
In place of sections 6A(2) and (3), 6B(4) and 6C(2), a preliminary breath test, preliminary impairment test or preliminary drug test may be administered by a constable—
(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or
(b) at a police station specified by the constable.
In section 6B(3) a reference to unfitness to drive shall be treated as a reference to having an impaired ability, because of drink or drugs, to perform an aviation function or to carry out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function."
Page 43, line 24, leave out "(and the definition of "drug" shall be disregarded)"
Clause 105 [Railways safety levy]:
12.30 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 7:
- Page 46, line 38, after "43" insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in order to seek some assurance from the Minister. He will remember that we debated who would meet the costs of the Health and Safety Commission. We talked about those costs falling on the train operating companies and being divided among them.
Since then, we have heard the outcome of the prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive of the Metropolitan Police over the issue of a police constable falling through the roof of a building. I believe that that should be described as a rather ill-considered prosecution. It failed completely and cost £3 million of public money.
I do not believe that train operating companies—freight or passenger—should be asked to pay the costs of speculative prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is a guardian of public money and largely prosecutes public bodies. Therefore, the taxpayer pays both ways and thus, ultimately, the taxpayer fines the taxpayer. It is an enormous waste of public resource. I believe that a regulating body should look not to prosecution but to encouraging the regulated party to modify its behaviour. It should expend almost all its effort on that and prosecute only as a very last resort.
I ask the Minister whether he can give us some comfort that we shall not see the costs of speculative prosecutions by regulatory bodies visited upon the regulated parties. In the most part, those parties have not given rise to the complaints but, so far as I can see, they stand to bear the costs of them. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say that, following assurances which I believe were given at earlier stages of the Bill, whatever means the Health and Safety Executive has used to assess the charges on the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—this measure will not widen the scope of the activities and issues for which they make a charge. In other words, if the HSE does not make a charge for prosecution at present, it would not do so in future, even if the mechanism for charging were different.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned train operating companies, but I believe that the provision applies to anyone with a licence, which would include Network Rail as well. It is extraordinary that, in those circumstances, such organisations would have to pay for their own prosecution. That seems to be all wrong. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will say that this provision is outwith the scope of any proposal for charging which the Health and Safety Executive may put forward.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, consideration of prosecution is one of a range of options open to Health and Safety Executive inspectors as part of their enforcement activities. Their responses to breaches of health and safety law are governed by the HSC's enforcement policy statement. Therefore, there is no question of the cost of prosecution being a consideration; the HSE must act objectively in accordance with its policy statement.
Work on gathering evidence to inform the decision as to whether or not to take a prosecution, as a routine enforcement activity of the Health and Safety Executive, is subject to the current charging regime and should properly be included under the railway levy. But that should not in any way distort the HSE's decision on whether or not to prosecute or, indeed, on the cost of gathering evidence.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I consider that reply to be slightly unsatisfactory. I realise that at this juncture there is nothing further that your Lordships' House
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I believe he knows from the public prints that serious consideration is being given to that issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a Statement about the humanitarian situation and reconstruction in Iraq.
I was in Iraq last week, in both Basra and Baghdad. I met representatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the United Nations, the military, Iraqi administrators, non-governmental organisations and UK civilian staff. I also visited a prison and water treatment plant in Basra and the British Office in Baghdad.
Progress has been made in Basra. Days after the end of the conflict, British troops took off their flak jackets and helmets and talked with civilians. That set the tone for a progressive return to normal life, with the military presence now relatively unobtrusive. Life has regained an air of normality: people are out in the streets; the markets sell fruit and vegetables; cars are on the streets; and shops and restaurants are open.
Quick impact projects, implemented by British forces, together with the United Nations, NGOs and local authorities, have made a visible difference. Basic services, including water and electricity, have been restored to pre-war levels. The prison has been rehabilitated. The courthouse has been refurbished and cases are now being heard. Work is under way to clean the city of solid waste and other health hazards. Medical services are functioning, albeit with localised shortages of specialist drugs and oxygen.
The House will want to pay tribute to UK forces for their significant contribution, often working in difficult and, at times, dangerous circumstances, as the deaths of the six Royal Military Police in Maysan last week all too clearly demonstrated.
The expectations of ordinary Iraqis are very high. The south suffered particular neglect under Saddam's regime and was starved of investment for years. We need to do better than just restore services to their pre-war levels. People expect more, and deserve more.
The situation in Baghdad is more difficult. Threats to security remain a significant obstacle to progress. Regrettably, attacks against the US military by ex-Ba'athists and criminals appear to have become more organised, as has sabotage of newly-restored
Some progress has been made on security. Thirty thousand Iraqi police officers have reported back to duty; a legal system is beginning to be re-established to control criminality; and the CPA has decided to pay stipends to ex-soldiers, which should help. But we are working to put in place the conditions for Iraq to be seen, by its own citizens, to be policing itself rather than being controlled by coalition forces. We attach a very high priority to the effective reform of the security sector.
Rapid and visible progress towards fully representative and democratic government is central to the future of Iraq. Iraqis must regain political control of their country as quickly as possible. While Iraqi-controlled local authorities are already working in a number of provincial towns, the process of establishing an Iraqi-led governing council is much more complex. That has to be done quickly, but it also has to be done right. The governing council needs to be representative, involving all the main parties and religious and ethnic groups, as well as providing for the efficient and effective involvement of women. The CPA is making progress on developing consensus among Iraqi representatives on the way forward. And, importantly, the United Nations is closely involved in this process.
Much has been made of the shortcomings in the CPA. That criticism has, in many cases, been overstated but clearly things could improve, and the CPA's leadership, with UK support, is working hard to improve the authority's performance. That includes establishing better communications between headquarters and the regions and, even more vitally, between the CPA and the Iraqi people. It is essential that the people understand what the CPA is doing, and why; and that the CPA can understand their wishes.
Almost 100 secondees to the CPA, from a wide range of UK government departments, are now in partnership with Iraqi ministries, our US colleagues and the humanitarian agencies, helping to get the Iraqi civil administration back up and running. The Department for International Development now has 27 advisers in Iraq, including the CPA's recently appointed director of operations.
We are also making a substantial financial contribution to humanitarian agencies working on the ground. Our total financial commitment now stands at £154 million, mostly channelled through organisations with the capacity and expertise to mount humanitarian operations quickly and effectively. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of the reconstruction work that has been undertaken so far by the agencies which we have been funding.
We are also working to support the longer-term reconstruction of Iraq. Much of the finance for this will come from Iraq's own oil revenues, initially through the Development Fund for Iraq, and subsequently through Iraq's own budget. But the international community also has an important role to play. In New York last week, informal meetings including Iraqi representatives began preparations for a donors' conference which is expected to take place in October, and agreed details of the assessment that the World Bank, IMF and United Nations will carry out during the intervening months. DfID will consider how best we can contribute to this longer-term reconstruction effort in the light of this work.
Years of sanctions and mismanagement by the Saddam regime have left the Iraqi economy very weak. Even before the conflict only about half the Iraqi workforce was in full-time employment. Iraq's oil wealth, and its relatively well educated population, should enable it to grow rapidly once security has stabilised and a representative government is in place that can take long-term economic policy decisions.
Humanitarian agencies, with our support, returned to Iraq quickly after the conflict ended, and have helped the country recover from the conflict and the looting that followed it. Their ability to do this was strengthened by good preparatory work, in part financed by DfID, and supported by the Armed Forces. But continued threats to security, particularly in Baghdad, remain a very significant constraint. The coalition is working urgently to address this in order to build on the progress achieved so far, and make real, lasting and visible improvements to the lives of the Iraqi people.
"( ) the costs arising from a prosecution brought by the Executive or the Commission,"
12.35 p.m.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful to the Secretary of State for making this Statement today. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who usually deals with international development business, cannot be here.
Inevitably, our minds are still filled with sorrow at the murder in Maysan-al-Kabir of the six brave young solders whose bodies now return to their homeland. All of us want to be sure that their lives were given in a good and purposeful cause—the rebuilding of Iraq as a land of peace and order after the horrors of the past. That said, would the Secretary of State agree that the reports of recent progress in re-establishing the rule of law and security have been worrying? Does she agree that preparations—despite assurances—have clearly fallen far short of what is needed? We were told as far back as January that preparations to meet the post-conflict situation were going to be "as good as they can be".
It is true that there has been no major humanitarian crisis of the kind widely predicted by some experts. Neither has there been a refugee crisis nor, so far, a massive spate of revenge killings. However, it is also clear that the coalition provisional administration is facing many other problems of law-keeping, civil
security and the laying of foundations of good governance by the Iraqi people themselves. Following her recent visit, can the Secretary of State tell us more about the role that her own department is playing in reconstructing the civil administration? What about basic services, power and water supplies and law enforcement training? Twenty-seven advisers do not sound a vast amount in such a huge country. Does the administration plan to keep the 18 regions of the country as they were before—14 of which were set up by the British in 1917–1921—thus avoiding dominance by any one sect or group? That is a very important principle on which to proceed.Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the main expenditure of this £154 million has gone so far? Have the UN agencies, which received the bulk of it, spent the money effectively? If all of it is being disbursed—an eventual figure of 100 billion dollars is mentioned—is the guiding strategy in place for it to go to the right priorities? How is it intended to get from where we are currently to making the civil and public services in Iraq fully operative again? How does the noble Baroness propose to deal with members of the Ba'athist party? Not every member of that party can be dismissed; otherwise there would be no administration at all. Obviously, one has to concentrate on the real killers and top criminals. But how will that be done, and is progress being made?
Is the Secretary of State satisfied about adequate communication and open lines between our forces and the civilian groups which will eventually have to run things in Iraq? Does she feel that links between our superb forces and the American authorities are close enough? Everyone is inclined to agree that abruptly disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake. Was our advice on this listened to and what steps are being taken to rectify the situation? Can we also play a stronger advisory role with our American friends in avoiding measures which increase local hostility, given our huge experience going back to 1917? Have we stressed the vital importance—as we did all those years ago—of respecting local customs and observing, as occupying power, the principle of usufruct?
Iraq is not Afghanistan. Does the Secretary of State agree that although there is much rural poverty Iraq is potentially a rich country with vast oil and mineral resources? It has a well-educated population with many very experienced women able to play a leading part. Indeed, the Iraqi people have some experience of running a democracy under a constitutional monarchy up to 1958. Has she studied current plans for distributing the ownership of the oil wealth of Iraq much more widely to the people? This would reduce the danger of corruption in state hands and help the seven million pensioners in Iraq.
The task of rebuilding Iraq as a force for good and peace in the region is not impossible. It is all the more frustrating that so far—I admit that these are early days—the problems are proving so intractable and the lack of preparation in meeting them so evident. We hope that what we have heard today will help carry things forward with our American allies and other coalition countries more steadily and in greater security. Our Armed Forces have performed brilliantly in war and
peace. But the Secretary of State will be the first to agree that we must not let them carry an increasing burden for restoring the country to civil order which others should now be prepared and ready—more than ready—to shoulder.12.50 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for making this Statement today. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, regarding the military policemen who were lost in Iraq. We express our great sympathy to their families and friends.
The Secretary of State notes the welcome progress in Iraq and refers to difficulties and shortcomings, but I wonder what she makes of the view of those who do not yet see such steady progress. Thus, UNICEF stated last week that,
- "the security situation in Baghdad and across the country is deteriorating".
- "the sharp reduction in the availability of electricity and water in most of Baghdad is exacerbating the frustration of the city inhabitants."
UN agencies and NGOs are experiencing attacks on their facilities and vehicles. The humanitarian community is concerned about the potential for civil unrest should the current situation continue.
Clearly, the situation in Iraq is very volatile. The key problem is lack of security. Some areas seem to have become more settled, while others which appeared settled now have problems. For example, Oxfam speaks of a worrying rise in violent crimes in Nassiriyah, which had previously seemed settled. Can the noble Baroness comment on whether the strategy of searching houses and removing small arms is seen as effective, or is it, indeed, causing widespread disquiet? What other measures are being taken to tackle that, and who is implementing them? Does the noble Baroness agree that we are now in a vicious cycle? Violence prevents reconstruction; no reconstruction breeds more discontent; and so on.
I know the Secretary of State is reluctant to put any timetable on this issue, but perhaps I may push her on it a little. Surely, the Government's planning has some kind of timetable. Will she indicate when she thinks Iraq will be sufficiently settled to enable it to elect interim authorities in Baghdad and Basra?
With the mounting casualty toll among authority troops, does she sense any changes in strategy by the Americans? If so, what are they?
Lack of security is holding up the restoration of basic infrastructure in the cities—water supplies, electricity, functioning hospitals, and so on. There is a high incidence of diarrhoeal disease, particularly among children, in Iraq.
Even food, which had seemed to be widely available, now appears to be in short supply. Oxfam reports that many families are surviving on bread and milk because the monthly food rations have stopped. Food prices have risen hugely. The price of a kilo of meat has doubled in recent weeks. Obviously, it is welcome that
the Marsh Arabs, who were deprived, are now getting food aid, but the overall picture is surely a cause for concern.There are reports of increased violence against women and girls. There are reports of threats made to Iraqi women and girls for not wearing clothing that is deemed modest. A UN worker has thus been threatened. The UN has also reported that in some cases girls in Basra not wearing headscarves have not been allowed into school. What strategies are being followed to address those problems?
The Secretary of State may remember that when we questioned her on Iraq last week I quoted a senior British official saying of the US-led administration that it was,
- "the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for".
There seems to be some realisation among the Americans that although the war may have been prepared for, the peace was not. I note that R Duncan Hunter, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, stated:
- "Occupation takes a lot of folks, probably takes a lot more folks than winning the war".
It is clear that the humanitarian situation in Iraq remains very serious. As the UN put it the other day,
- "the high levels of vulnerability and dependence on government services that existed before the conflict have increased further".
Obviously, we welcome any progress that is being made. Clearly, the situation is volatile and the coalition partners will need to be engaged for a long time. Can the noble Baroness shed any light on what plans were worked out for post-war Iraq? Does she now feel that some of the assumptions made before the war have since proved untenable? If so, what is being done to learn those lessons?
12.55 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their comments on the Statement. I agree that we must pay tribute to our troops in Iraq. I met a number of them. They have done, and continue to do, a magnificent job.
I turn to the specific points. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of preparations, a subject on which I was also questioned by the International Development Select Committee earlier this week. I must say that I do not agree that our preparations have fallen short of what was needed. As to the different kind of scenarios for which we planned,
we should be very pleased that those with respect to a wholesale movement of refugees being internally displaced did not happen.What we could not plan for was the widespread looting that happened immediately after the conflict ended. I saw for myself the impact of the precision bombing in Basra and Baghdad. There is very little left that resembles what we would think of as a post-war situation. But what I found even more distressing were the many buildings which had been looted and then fired from inside, which means that Iraqi ministries cannot now function. They do not have the records, although some Iraqi workers took home discs and files of information. The looting has done considerable damage.
That has been followed by deliberate sabotage. There are miles of electricity cable. It is very difficult to have security along the entire length of that cable. Once an electricity supply is damaged, it has a knock-on effect, in particular on water because the water pumps cannot work. The coalition forces and the CPA are doing everything they can to get the situation back up and running. We are well aware that there are forces out there who do not want the coalition to succeed. There are rumours going around Iraq about what has happened to Saddam Hussein, which are leading to a fear culture among the people of Iraq. We have to deal with that as a matter of some urgency. We must find Saddam Hussein and his sons and we have to make sure that the constant threats being made to security are dealt with.
With respect to the CPA itself and the questions which have been asked with respect to its administration, I was very encouraged indeed by what I saw in Baghdad. The administration is functioning much more effectively. A relationship is developing between the CPA and the Iraqi ministries it is shadowing. A draft budget has been developed, not only for the CPA but also for those ministries. DfID staff are very much involved in making sure that that draft budget feeds down into Basra and other areas. They are giving support in areas that will eventually lead to greater revenue collection, such as customs; in giving advice on law enforcement and on security sector reform; and in giving support on basic administration across the whole range of issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether it was the intention to keep the administrative regions of the country. That is a decision for the Iraqis. Once the governing council is up and running that will lead into a constitutional process, and Iraqis themselves will make decisions about what they would like to see with respect to the structure that is put in place. We very much see this as being something for Iraqis to decide.
The noble Lord asked about specific areas in which money had been spent by the Department for International Development. The figures have now been placed in the Library. We have spent £8.5 million on health and nutrition, £4 million on water and sanitation, £33.6 million on food, £1.5 million on agriculture, £7 million on power and fuel, and so it goes on. Of that money, UNICEF has been granted
£3.19 million to re-establish immunisation services and £3.2 million to deal with water and sanitation. The United Nations Development Programme has been given £7 million to restore electricity supplies. A considerable amount—£16.5 million—has been given to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and £15.5 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society. The UN agencies have a long track record of working in Iraq, particularly on the oil for food programme, but also in other areas. We are very satisfied with the work that they have been doing to restore basic services to Iraq.Regarding the Ba'athists, the strategy has been clear. The top three layers in any ministry—that is the minister, the deputy minister and the director general—have been removed. Those who have been in senior positions in the party hierarchy have also been removed. However, exemptions can be asked for if any individuals occupy a particular position where it is considered that a service will be unable to be run if that individual were to be removed. That exemption would be considered.
The army are now receiving stipends. It is right that we move immediately to reforming the security sector. We need a police service that is not violent and repressive but sees its role as being to police the community. We also need a revamped Iraqi army and we are involved in developing training for that, as are our Armed Forces. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to respect local services and customs. I also agree that Iraq is a rich country with a well-educated population. That is why Iraqis are so keen to take control of their own situation. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the problems are intractable. We have seen difficult situations in other countries—Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example—but I feel that there are successes we should be proud of. There is no doubt that the security situation remains extremely difficult, not only for coalition forces, but for Iraqis themselves. We have to deal with it and we have to be seen to be dealing with it.
Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I agree that the key problem is security. I have made that clear. We saw Saddam Hussein release 75,000 prisoners towards the end of last year, so sabotage plus crime from those criminal elements is having an extraordinary impact. Regarding the timetable, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. It is important for Iraqis to also help set the timetable. We need to make clear that we want to see Iraqis taking control and that that is a process that we are seeking to support. We are not there to occupy Iraq for the long term; we need to communicate that. I agree with the noble Baroness about the need to make sure that those messages are communicated.
Regarding food, 760,000 tonnes of food were distributed by the end of June, reaching around 95 per cent of intended recipients. I shall look at the figures set out by the noble Baroness, but certainly my view from being in Iraq is that the food distribution pipelines were working quite well. Women to whom I
spoke were concerned about the increase in violence towards women and girls. We are trying to ensure that women are actively engaged in the political process.1.5 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, what arrangements have been made by the Coalition Provisional Authority to broadcast to the Iraqi people, whether by radio or by television, information about current issues and also about the policies of the CPA? If those arrangements have been made, what is their effect?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page