| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that the legal aid scheme has been in crisis for a number of years and that, at the root of that crisis, is not only the issue that he correctly identifies of the balance between criminal and civil legal aid but the reward of solicitors in the civil legal aid system which in many cases has not been uprated for many years, leading to a flight of the most able legal aid solicitors from the legal aid scheme?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept the proposition at the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. I attended a gathering of civil legal aid solicitors the other day, and one of the most horrifying aspects was that they were all about my age. There are no young people coming into civil legal aid, and that is reflected in what has happened. Expenditure on criminal legal aid has gone up by 34 per cent; excluding asylum cases, expenditure on civil legal aid has gone down by 24 per cent. That is part of the explanation for the phenomenon described by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend clarify whether criminal legal aid expenditure is a product of increased volume or an increase in average costs and, if so, why so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there has been a small increase in volume which would not remotely explain the huge increase in criminal legal
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1100
aid. The increase in costs has largely come from a few big cases. For example, last year £50 million was spent in criminal legal aid on 13 cases.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of the expenditure on criminal legal aid, has not the fundamental problem over the past 10 years been the tendency to lay multi-count indictments? The difficulty is that the old authority of the High Court judge who said "I will not try this—try the substance" has now gone. There ought to be a control of the indictments in some form which the noble and learned Lord could no doubt devise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that there is a problem about overloaded indictments with too many charges and too many defendants. The solution to the long case is not just about legal aid; it is also about judicial case management, appropriate charging and case management by prosecutors. But I believe that the judges, the prosecutors and now the legal aid arrangements are all bearing down on big trials to try to reduce their length and cost so that they are dealt with proportionately.
Democratic Republic of Congo: Arms Embargo
3.9 pm
Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to allegations made in Amnesty International's recent report on the involvement of British-based companies in the shipment of arms to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to observe and to support strongly the UN and EU arms embargoes on the Democratic Republic of Congo. We take seriously any allegations that UK entities may have been involved in the illicit supply of arms to embargoed destinations. Any evidence that we receive is passed promptly to the relevant United Kingdom authorities for their investigations. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the appropriate investigating body, made full inquiries into these allegations in 2003, but found no evidence of offences.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he knows, terrible atrocities have been committed in the DRC and we heard only this week of women and children being rounded up and burned alive in their huts. Therefore, will he give the assurance that he will carry out a full and transparent inquiry, which he will make public, into the allegations in the Amnesty International report? If appropriate,
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1101
will he follow that up with prosecutions? How many prosecutions in like cases have been carried through by the UK Government?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, as I said in my first response, these allegations go back to 2003 and a full investigation was made at the time. So that the House is fully in the picture, the transaction was between the Albanian and Rwandan Governments. The end user certificates were exchanged between them. No United Kingdom entity was involved in that process because, although the shipping company was a United Kingdom entity, it did not have an obligation to apply for any licences. However, I can tell the House that the Export Control Act 2002 came into force in May 2004, which introduced trade licences so that anyone who is trading, shipping or taking any part, would come under the purview of the United Kingdom.
I apologise for a long answer, but this is a very grave matter. I believe that had we been in a position to have inspected that deal with the appropriate legislation at the time it is extremely unlikely that a licence would have been issued.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister also confirm that, during the period in which African International Airways was acting as the carrier for these arms and the investigation was under way, it was still undertaking work for Her Majesty's Government? Will he also confirm that, during that period, some 250 tonnes of arms—more than 5 million rounds of machine-gun ammunition and rocket propelled grenades—were shipped into the Democratic Republic of Congo? Will he also agree that if we are looking for weapons of mass destruction we need look no further than those kinds of arms in a conflict in which more than 3.5 million people have now died and 300,000 children are under arms.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, a huge number of small arms and ammunition for those arms unquestionably got into the Democratic Republic of Congo. That shows—if anything does—the importance of having a small arms treaty and one that can be enforced. In that sense, I share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord. The company is not and has not for some time been engaged in any activity for which the United Kingdom Government have contracted it. If it is his wish, I will go back into earlier contracts, but I can tell noble Lords that there have certainly been no recent contracts.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the current global security threat is such that it emphasises that the arms trade in any form has the potential to be extremely dangerous? Would he not therefore agree that arms sales should take place only when there are convincing guarantees about the end use and there has been the most rigorous analysis of any political consequences? Will he also clarify whether brokering abroad by British residents or British citizens is beyond legal accountability in this country?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is of vital importance to establish who the end user is.
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1102
Certainly, in the granting of any licences in the United Kingdom, that would be one of the principal considerations, and we would want to look at every possible potential political consequence. Of course, we cannot act between other governments, except when a British company is involved. As I understand the matter, if the entities are involved in trading, shipping, providing insurance or any associated activities for military, listed or restricted goods, they are now subject fully to legal restriction in a way that they were not at the time. We shall make full use of those powers to try to achieve the objectives that the noble Lord has described.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there not a number of serious allegations—apart from those made by Amnesty International—in the report of the group of experts appointed under Security Council Resolution 1533? Are we not obliged by Security Council Resolution 1596 to investigate the activities of our nationals when they are alleged to be involved in the operation of aircraft used for the transfer of arms? Does that not require us to launch investigations, rather than waiting for evidence to be submitted to us? Why has the United Nations not published the report of the group of experts which was meant to be submitted to it on 12 July? What is the reason for the delay?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not aware that there has been a delay in the publication of the report. The group of experts has continued its work, and the monitoring of the implementation of the arms embargo to the DRC in the latter part of 2004 has been the subject of its most recent work. William Churchill was involved, and has criticised some of that early work. The report was made in March 2005, and the group's response is being examined by a committee of the United Nations Security Council. As I understand the matter, the group of experts is being encouraged to continue to observe the highest procedural and evidentiary standard in its work. It continues to work, and I believe that we should encourage it to do so.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |