| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Caithness: I am very disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. She hid behind words in a
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1106
manner that is not usual for her. Notwithstanding the correct point that she made, does she agree that, given that the minimum standards came about as a result of the Hague programme and that they were based on a Council resolution and prepared using facilities and paper in Brussels, it would have been courteous for the matter to come before the sub-committee of your Lordships' House and that not to have done so was to show disrespect and disregard for our committee system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assure the noble Earl that it was not the intention of the Home Office or my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—and it would never have been mine—to show anything other than the utmost respect for the Select Committee on the European Union. The noble Earl, of all people, knows the high regard in which the committee is held, the attention that is paid to it and the information that is given to it to ensure that it can do its work. The decision clearly made by the Home Office was that this was not a matter that had to go before the committee. The committee was apprised of it as a matter of courtesy as that was thought to be right but, according to the Justice and Home Affairs Council, no procedure demanded that such a submission should be made. That was contained in the letter written by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I understand the sensitivity expressed by the noble Earl in that regard, but I assure him that no discourtesy or disrespect was intended by the process adopted on this occasion.
Lord Crickhowell: I want to ask a question. I have listened with great interest to the exchange that we have had on very important issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will put the letter that she writes to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in the Library or that she will make it available to those who have taken part in this debate. But I am not clear whether she has said that all the points covered by my noble friend's amendment are exactly as my noble friend said they should be. We have been so engaged on the issue of the Select Committee's exact position in Europe that I, for one, am confused. I simply want to know whether my noble friend's requirements are met and, in that case, is the Minister able to accept my noble friend's amendment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not accept the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly moved it to enable me to explain what was done by the Government in relation to inter-governmental procedure and decisions that were made at the Council. I thanked her warmly, I hope, for giving me that opportunity and I have sought to explain what has happened. I believe that I have answered all the questions that she raised; at the same time I tried to allay the concerns that were also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope that I have been as comprehensive as I can be at a quarter past midnight.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and will of course consider her answers
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1107
very carefully between now and Report to see whether there is any need to come back with this particular amendment, or whether my noble friends might consider an alternative. When it comes to expertise in these matters, I yield to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for pointing out that it would be helpful if the Minister's letter to my noble friend could be put in the Library.
My concern was heightened when I listened to my noble friend the Earl of Caithness explain how Sub-Committee F appeared not to have been kept as informed as perhaps it felt that it should, particularly when it seems that the Home Secretary had promised to keep it informed and did not do so. I am not party to any correspondence between the Minister's noble friend Lord Grenfell, who chairs that sub-committee, and the Home Secretary. That is also not relevant to
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1108
my amendment and, therefore, I just note that I am sure that the noble Baroness has the highest regard for the sub-committee and will bring this matter to the attention of her right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past midnight.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires me to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on my exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The 2005 Act came into force on 11 March 2005. During the third period (11 September to 10 December) I made four orders on 23 November 2005 and one order on 8 December 2005, all five were made with the permission of the court under Section 3(l)(a) of the 2005 Act.
There are eight control orders currently in force.
During the period I have refused two requests to modify control order obligations. A right of appeal exists in Section 10 of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State not to modify an obligation contained in a control order. This has not been exercised in respect of these refusals.
Lord Triesman: From a community of around 23,000 in the United Kingdom entitled to diplomatic immunity, 11 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2004. "Serious Offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges—that is as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.
Lord Triesman: There were 4,821 outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom recorded during the year 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004. These totalled £425,480.00. In July this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity to pay their outstanding fines, or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £63,650.00 were received, leaving a total of 4,135 (£361,830.00) unpaid fines
12 Dec 2005 : Column WS106
for 2004. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations which have 11 or more undisputed fines unpaid.
The number of outstanding fines incurred by diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge since its introduction in February 2003 until 10 November 2005 was 32,761. The table below shows the 10 diplomatic missions with the highest number of outstanding fines.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |