| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Car Accident Investigations
15. Mr. Hanson: If he will ensure that revised guidelines are issued to police forces with regard to the retention of vehicle evidence in car accident investigations. [24626]
Mr. Michael: The Home Office issued general guidance to forces on the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which includes the length of time material obtained in a criminal investigation should be retained. The retention of vehicle evidence is an operational matter, but we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service the implications of recent court decisions, including the Regina v. Beckford judgment on the retention of vehicle evidence.
Mr. Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sarah Burton? She was killed in a car crash and the case went to court, but it collapsed because the police had destroyed the car that was needed in evidence. Although it is an operational matter for chief police officers, will my hon. Friend ensure that they introduce guidelines to ensure that cases such as Regina v. Beckford, and Sarah Burton, do not happen again?
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has brought an important matter to the House. Indeed, it is partly as a result of a letter that he wrote to me that we have decided to look afresh at the issue. As he rightly said, these are operational decisions for chief constables, but we need to consider the implications. That is why we are discussing the matter with ACPO and the CPS.
Age of Majority
16. Mr. Chope: What plans he has to lower the age of majority. [24627]
Ms Quin: The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority to 18. The Government have no plans to change it.
Mr. Chope: I accept the Minister's response, but has she thought about the anomalies in this country, such as the age of majority being 16 in Scotland but 18 in England? In view of the much-publicised events over Christmas and the new year involving the reporting in Scotland of proceedings affecting 16 to 18-year-olds in England, will she think again about whether the age of majority in England should be the same as the age of majority in Scotland--whether that means reducing the age in England to that in Scotland, or raising the age in Scotland to that in England?
Ms Quin: Although we do not have any plans to change the system in England, we are studying the handling of cases involving juveniles before the courts, along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that our system means that although at the age of 18, members of the
public may vote for their elected representatives, they may not stand to be an elected representative of either this House or a council until they have reached the age of 21? They cannot indulge in a number of other activities until they reach the age of 16, 17, 18 or 21. There should be consistency in the ages at which people attain rights. Will my hon. Friend review the matter and carefully consider whether we should ensure that people attain rights at one age?
Ms Quin: We believe that it is important to examine the separate issues, and then to decide the most appropriate age that might apply in the circumstances. Although we do not have any plans to change the age at which people may stand as a candidate, as it seems to be very much in line with practice across Europe, the
working party on electoral procedures, which was mentioned earlier and is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), may wish to examine that issue.
Mr. Bercow: Has the Minister received any representations on lowering the age of majority from the Minister without Portfolio--who, in a desperate search for supporters for the millennium dome project, has very wisely hired the services of an eight-year-old boy?
Ms Quin: The citizens of the future are important voices to listen to in that process, but I have received no such representations.
Iraq
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments on Iraq.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments.
On Saturday, I held a two-hour meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to deal with Iraq's continuing refusal to grant full and unrestricted access to United Nations Special Commission teams. The meeting formed part of intensive efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
I met Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on 26 January, and I spoke to French Minister Vedrine on 29 January. Our permanent five partners are also active: President Chirac has sent an envoy to Iraq; the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister is returning from there after his talks with Tariq Aziz. We support those latest efforts to end the deadlock.
The United Kingdom is currently taking the lead in the Security Council. We have prepared a draft Security Council resolution, which we shall be discussing with our Security Council partners. The resolution makes it clear that Saddam Hussein must obey the will of the international community. He must allow full and unrestricted access to all UNSCOM teams and reveal all details of his weapons of mass destruction programmes.
Saddam Hussein is persisting with his attempts to thwart UNSCOM's vital task of destroying and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM cannot carry out its duties while Saddam continues to deny access to presidential sites. Neither can there be any deadlines for UNSCOM to complete its work. The Security Council must be assured that all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related facilities have been destroyed. Even then, UNSCOM may have to continue working and monitoring for some time, to ensure that they are not rebuilt.
Saddam must be left in no doubt about our determination to secure his compliance with Security Council resolutions. Although we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, we have not ruled out, nor will we rule out, the use of force. The best way for us to achieve a diplomatic solution is to prove to Saddam that we are prepared to use all means necessary to ensure that he complies. As a precautionary measure, HMS Invincible has been deployed to the Gulf and has engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces in the northern Gulf waters. In due course, it will be replaced by HMS Illustrious.
The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the sufferings of the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. The difficulties and hardships that they face result from Saddam's failure to meet his international obligations. Even when offered a chance to provide for his people through oil-for-food arrangements,
he repeatedly refused to avail himself of the opportunity. Since the scheme's introduction, he has repeatedly obstructed its implementation. The United Kingdom has been in the lead in proposing and steering through the Council resolutions on oil for food. We are especially pleased that the Secretary-General will be reporting to the Security Council later today with recommendations to improve and expand that programme. We shall give his proposals our strong support.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a serious threat. Iraq has developed the know-how and equipment to produce biological and chemical weapons on an industrial scale. Despite all that UNSCOM has achieved, we cannot be certain that important parts of that capability are not being retained. Without effective UNSCOM monitoring, Iraq could produce enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads and could within weeks be producing a large volume of nerve gas. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that Saddam Hussein is stopped. He should not underestimate our resolve to make sure that he is stopped.
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. As he knows, we share his determination to take whatever steps are necessary to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and relieve the world of the threat that he will use weapons of mass destruction. We all hope that that can be achieved by diplomatic means. If, however, force proves necessary, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House, not least for the sake of the British service men and women whose lives may be put at risk, that clear objectives will be set?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |