---

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. At this stage I shall deal with his concerns as simply as possible and then write to him in detail, particularly if he would like to explore with me further the examples that we have discussed briefly so that the position can be clarified.

Essentially, the principle set out in the rules is that a day of shared remand time shall be counted only once. The effect of being sentenced for two offences committed at different times may be different if the sentences are consecutive or concurrent. In the
 
13 Jun 2005 : Column 1093
 
example cited by the noble Lord it would not necessarily count in relation to both. It might count in relation to one dependent on concurrence, or consecutively. However, I can better deal with the detail of the point in written form because of the complexities of trying to track it through.

On the Act itself, noble Lords will know that guidance was issued to courts in April via a Home Office circular. Therefore the courts have already been adopting the principles set out in these rules and their implementation merely formalises in statute what is current practice.

I know that the noble Lord has commented on the maximum time spent on remand. However, although it is not set out formally in the rules, tagging can take place in relation to an adult offender, if the court believes that course as regards bail to be appropriate. There are many issues in this area that noble Lords are anxious to debate and I am sure that we will find time to do so, but perhaps not on this order. However, I am again happy to write to the noble Lord on this point.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we begin on the Unstarred Question, perhaps I may point out that only one minute can be allowed to speak in the gap. If noble Lords overrun their time, unfortunately the Minister will be unable to reply.

Asian Tsunami: Emergency Relief

4.27 pm

Lord Naseby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of reconstruction following the emergency relief given in response to the Asian tsunami.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, given that I shall not be more than 11 minutes, I too make a plea to my colleagues to keep to their time so that we can hear from the Minister. To a degree I know all the five affected countries in south and south-east Asia. I have visited them all and I have had the privilege of working in three. Post-tsunami, I visited Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but this debate is not about emergency relief; rather, it concerns the next stage, that of reconstruction.

I chair both the Maldives and the Sri Lanka All-Party Groups and I want to see both countries back on their feet as quickly as possible. I do not take any political side in the debate on the respective countries and I have absolutely nil in the way of commercial interests in either or any of them.

Perhaps I may begin with the position in the Maldives. Although the Maldives is the smallest country, in relative terms it was in fact the hardest hit of the whole lot. It was affected both economically and in terms of land mass. The disaster relief exercise went well, having been well organised by the Maldivian Government, and there was a good response from
 
13 Jun 2005 : Column 1094
 
both the aid agencies and the world in general. Nevertheless, out of a population of 300,000, one third—some 100,000—people were affected. While it is true that the dead numbered only 83, some 12,000 were made homeless, nine islands have disappeared altogether and are no longer a part of the Maldives as a country, and only nine out of the 200 inhabited islands escaped damage altogether.

The damage hit the Maldivian economy extremely seriously. The biggest loss was that of tourism because understandably tourists have decided not to go to the Maldives, while the direct damage costs are estimated at over $100 million. Some 25 per cent of the 87 tourist hotels were badly damaged, and the United Nations Development Programme estimates that the tsunami has set back development by 20 years. Total damage renewal costs have been estimated at $470 million, which represents 62 per cent of the GDP of the entire country.

Today tourism is still down by 40 per cent, despite the fact that only six resorts have not yet reopened. Some 81 are now open for business. In my judgment, the Maldivian Government are efficient and well organised. I was interested to read a letter sent recently by our own British Red Cross to the government complimenting them on their arrangements for its involvement, and I should like to place on the record my appreciation of what the British Red Cross has done in the Maldives.

The restraining factor in the Maldives is money. They have estimated their needs, which have been verified by the United Nations, at $470 million. As of last Friday the international pledges stood at $150 million: a shortfall of $320 million. That is a huge shortfall. It was slightly disingenuous of the Leader of the House in answer to my Question last week to suggest that the Maldives was no longer a poor developing country. That might have been true pre-tsunami, but it is certainly not true post-tsunami. Whereas previously it had 5 per cent growth, the growth rate this year is estimated at best to be 1 per cent.

So I am asking Her Majesty's Government to take a lead individually and in terms of our presidency of the European Union. In contrast to the UN, the World Bank and our own DfID, the EU's response was disappointing, to put it mildly. As a major member of the Commonwealth I would hope that we could take a lead in garnering the support of the Commonwealth. As the Prime Minister seems to be involved in most world matters, maybe we could also get cracking with the UN and the World Bank.

But this is not just a short-term disaster. For the Maldives, the shortfall of needed resources runs the risk of being at best a medium-term disaster. We have special responsibility; after all, it was a British protectorate until 1965. Admittedly, we made an early pledge of £50 million, which is welcome. But as it moves from least-developed country to developing country status that aspect needs to be reviewed; otherwise its exports will be adversely affected.
 
13 Jun 2005 : Column 1095
 

I would like to say a big thank you to certain members of the UK High Commission for the Maldives, particularly Mr Steve Ainsworth, and to the Royal Navy, the British Red Cross and Oxfam.

I turn to Sri Lanka, which I know extremely well. In one sense it has a greater problem and in another sense not so great. There were 40,000 dead, 1 million homeless, massive disruption and 23,000 fishing boats destroyed. Yet there was no death or starvation subsequent to the tsunami, no law and order riots. Camps were set up immediately, of which I visited a number: 750 camps were set up, now reduced to 102. The railway line reopened in six weeks—somewhat quicker than at Hatfield. Rehousing commenced and temporary housing is now available for 200,000, but permanent housing is still needed.

There was an incredible response from small British charities. I mention two in particular: Adopt Sri Lanka, run by Geoffrey Dobbs, who lives in the outskirts of Galle; and Rebuilding Sri Lanka, run by Alison Nagle, who was initially just a tourist. Both those organisations, but Adopt Sri Lanka in particular, got cracking almost within 12 hours of the tsunami in terms of providing food, livelihoods, storing fishing boat engines, setting up workshops to restore fishing boats and getting the schools reopened. It was a wonderful response.

There was a very good response from the United States in bringing in heavy equipment to clear the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the government agents, who do a thankless job in Sri Lanka. I have met a great many over the years; they are dedicated public officials. That is the good side.

Unfortunately there is a bad side. Unlike 9/11 and the east coast floods in 1953, when everyone pulled together, sadly in Sri Lanka that is not the situation. There is argy-bargy between the political parties: the PA—the government grouping—the UNP, the JVP and, overlying everything, the LTTE. That is a huge hindrance. Ball-bearings are being sent in relief containers, not to be put into wheels but for suicide bombs—that is what ball-bearings are for. It is a great problem and a great tragedy and the world has to put some pressure on all those parties to achieve peace in that country.

There is a lack of working equipment on the ground. I am tired of seeing people trying to rescue things or do things with picks, shovels and wheelbarrows. We have to move forward and something has to happen there.

There is a great problem of the 100 metres, the 150 metres or the 0 metres. I make a plea to the President, whom I know well, to make a clear world announcement on that policy, in which there has to be some flexibility. If one is a fisherman, one does not want to be 150 metres away; one wants to be near the beach.

I mentioned in passing the east coast to remind us all that 307 people were killed in this country, which led to the erection of the Thames Barrier; 32,000 people were evacuated and no one was properly rehoused until a
 
13 Jun 2005 : Column 1096
 
year later. We are only coming up to six months after the tsunami, so frankly even we were not that good at it.

My conclusions are that the emergency side went well, on which I congratulate everyone. But as with the conclusion for the east coast flooding, we need a warning system. We need to recognise that we are in a technical world. We need capital equipment, bulldozers and JCB diggers on-site, so why does the UK not consider an agreement with JC Bamford, immediately when there is a crisis, to draw off a dozen or so JCBs to be flown or shipped to wherever the problem is?

We need technical people on standby. How good to see the Germans having their desalination teams on-site within 36 hours of the disaster. We need electricians—they went in in the end, but it took almost a couple of weeks. They should be on call. We need to deliver stuff. We are good at aircraft, but we have forgotten that landing craft are needed for coastal disasters. We need landing craft positioned around the world. How well the Singaporeans did in Ache. They were the only people who had landing craft: they were there within 48 hours.

I conclude by saying that after one year we as politicians will need to review what has happened. We as politicians need to set the pace and to show that we have responded to what has been one of the world's greatest disasters.

4.38 pm

---