---

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I ask him one question. The previous Motion, which he moved successfully, was laid approximately six months ago. This Motion was laid only seven days ago. Could he give us an explanation for the difference between those two?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a good reason. The Motion laid six months ago was then petitioned against. Your Lordships Hybrid Instruments Committee accepted that the petitioners had a case to make. Therefore, the Summer Recess intervened. The original plan was to have the urban development corporation order approved by both Houses before the Summer Recess, but of course it did not occur that way. Once the committee had rightly said that the petitioners had a case to be heard, procedures had to be followed. That is the reason for the quite extensive change. The reason for the shortness of time as regards this Motion I shall come to in a moment because it is buried in one of these paragraphs here.

There were 63 responses to the consultation paper. It was sent out to all local authorities and some 300 organisations. So the idea of it being transparent and understandable is clearly not the case because a lot of them either thought, "This is really great; we don't need to say anything about this", or, "This is terrible; we don't understand a word. We'd better not say anything in case we get ourselves in trouble".

I want to make plain that the matter is complicated. There are people for whom local government finance brings a glaze to the eyes and whose reason for living is to get to the minutiae. That is fine. But for the vast majority of us, it is not like that; we just end up paying the bills. The call is always to make it simple. I can recall a government deciding that the system was so complicated and that we should have a simple system. What did we get? The poll tax. Nobody can argue that the poll tax was not simple, but I warn the House that simple things are usually very unfair. That is why you have to build in what looks like extra complexities. I regret that like everybody
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1050
 
else. Therefore, perhaps I could just deal with the note that I did not have, which deals with the Merits Committee report, which covers some of those issues. I hope that if I put that on the record, it will satisfy noble Lords.

The Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments has drawn the regulations to the especial attention of the House. The committee expressed concern that the fixing of the debate so soon after laying the regulations and the failure to make the relevant research available earlier means that the debate may not be as fully informed as was expected at the time of the Lords' consideration of Commons amendments to the Local Government Bill in 2003. My own words have rightly been cited back at me.

As I said, we have consulted widely with stakeholders throughout the process. All the options have been considered and evaluated and we are as confident as we can be that the relevant information has been made available and that interested people have had sufficient information to form a considered judgment. I shall say a few things about the process.

The research project went ahead as planned. Key stakeholders were involved in the process and the final decisions were based on the outcome of the research. The research considered various models, with permutations within each model. Those were narrowed down in consultation with the stakeholder group and the preferred models were worked up in greater detail. The regulatory impact assessment reported the relevant data from the preferred models. The consultation document and the regulatory impact assessment contained all the key information from the research project.

The research reports contained sensitive information about the impact of revaluation and the likely rateable value of specific hereditaments. It was of course not appropriate to make that information available. The Valuation Office Agency published the draft rating list on 1 October 2004. All ratepayers could find out their new rateable values and the information on rateable values in the report was made public. The consultation process was already well under way and ratepayers could work out the impact of the scheme on their rates bill.

On the basis of the consultation and the more up-to-date data from the Valuation Office Agency, the final models were developed. The regulatory impact assessment was updated to reflect that and, in that sense, the regulatory impact assessment has now overtaken the research report. It contains the relevant information and the most up-to-date information. The research report was a technical document and I will be happy to consider making the whole technical report available, although it was not originally designed as a public document. That is why we produced the summary of the research findings.

I have already mentioned that many options were considered. Supplement-based schemes were considered, but we did not feel inclined towards a supplement-based scheme. That position was supported by the research project and by the consultation with the stakeholders.
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1051
 

With respect to timing, the data on all valuations were available from the Valuation Office Agency in June 2004. We were only then able to consider the impact on the private schemes, and announced the proposed scheme in July. The consultation closed at the end of October. The response has had to be considered, final schemes modelled and the regulations laid before the House. Under Section 65(9) of the Local Government Act 2003, the regulations must come into force before 1 January 2005 if there is to be any transitional scheme for 2005–10. We cannot see how the process can be managed under any other time-scale, given those dates. I am not responsible for business management, but I suppose but we could have done this next week, although I suspect that there are excellent reasons why we could not.

I shall deal with one other issue dealt with by the memorandum from the Select Committee. It refers to the fact that the consultation identified a number of respondents who disagreed with the proposal. Some of those respondents argued against the principle of transitional arrangements and revenue neutrality. However, that issue was fully debated and decided in the Local Government Act and this is not really the moment to reopen it. We had a big debate about whether it should be revenue-neutral or whether the general taxpayer should fund some of it.

So we have considered the options, including supplement-based approaches, both revenue-neutral in each year and over the life of the list. We also considered a two-year and five-year period, but five years was always difficult and has been ruled out. The researchers considered the options; stakeholders expressed their views; and officials and Ministers weighed them up and then conducted a three-month consultation on the preferred option, fully explaining the other options and the reasons for the final position. On balance, the feedback favoured downward phasing as the method of funding the relief.

Obviously, I treat the Merits Committee seriously, because it makes fair points about the timing and research but, given what I have said, I hope that the House will accept that we have operated in good faith throughout, trying to have the maximum contact possible with those outside who will actually pay the rates, which is essentially the business community. It is important that we carry them along with us.

I am not saying that their views are unanimous; that would be ridiculous; of course there are bound to be people out there who would prefer to pay less and those who will gain would like the gain quicker. I understand that, but Parliament decided that the measure would be revenue-neutral and we must therefore have a system that is fair to those who gain and to those who will pay a bit more. After all, they are only paying a bit more because the value of their property has risen a bit higher than the average. I suspect that, in due course, I will be introducing an order to the House for domestic rating and we will have an even higher attendance than we have today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1052
 

Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004

Baroness Crawley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004 be approved. It was laid before the House on 16 September, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. In moving the order, for the convenience of the House, I should also like to speak the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004. It was laid before the House on 24 November, again with an Explanatory Memorandum, now required for all affirmative statutory instruments.

The first draft order will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement establishing the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation as an Intergovernmental Organisation, which was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom in 2002.

The Geneva-based Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation, known as AITIC, was originally established in 1998 as a Swiss non-governmental organisation. It became an intergovernmental organisation in 2002 and provides valuable support to those World Trade Organisation members with little or no representation in Geneva. Its aim is to assist the least developed, low and middle-income counties and economies in transition to benefit from the multilateral trading system and to participate more actively in the work of the WTO and other trade-related organisations.

The agreement establishing the AITIC includes provision, in Article 13, requiring members to give AITIC legal capacity: in particular the capacity to contract; to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; and to institute legal proceedings. The draft order will enable the UK to give effect to that provision. The draft order will confer only legal capacity on AITIC and will not result in any privileges and immunities in the United Kingdom for AITIC or its staff.

UK ratification of the agreement will allow the Department for International Development to release the funds it has allocated to support AITIC: £1 million over three years. It will also allow the UK to become a full member of the AITIC council of representatives and play an active role in that worthwhile organisation.

The second order, the International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004, as noble Lords will note, revokes an earlier order of 2002: SI 2002/793. The present order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which was signed on behalf of Her Majesty's
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1053
 
Government on 10 September 2002, immediately following its adoption by the first Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute.

One of our obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is to ensure that staff of the International Criminal Court and those involved in proceedings before the court can enjoy the necessary levels of privileges and immunities in order to allow the court to operate effectively. That is the purpose of this order.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent court, situated in The Hague. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind; namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, perhaps in the future, the crime of aggression. There have been aspirations for the creation of such a court for the past 50 years, since the United Nations was founded in 1945 and after the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals.

The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals not states. The court is able to prosecute not only those who carry out crimes, but also those in authority who order crimes to be committed, including heads of state and government officials. The ICC works as a court that is "complementary" to national courts. National courts retain primary jurisdiction. The ICC will take over investigating and prosecuting a crime only when the states with jurisdiction are unable or unwilling genuinely to do so.

The ICC consists of a chamber of 18 judges divided into pre-trial, trial and appeals division, an independent prosecutor and a registry. The ICC statute contains detailed provisions safeguarding due process and fair trial in accordance with the highest international standards. The ICC may sentence individuals to terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or, where justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. Fines and forfeiture of proceeds from the crimes in question may also be ordered.

Funding is through contributions from states parties to the court and it also receives some funding from the United Nations, in particular where the UN Security Council has referred a situation. I am satisfied that both orders are compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Crawley.)

---