| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Garden: My Lords, did the investigation of 2003 also investigate the funding arrangements for these flights, given the concerns reflected in the Amnesty International report? Will the Minister undertake to publish in the public domain the investigation that cleared those airlines?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not believe that it is normal for Customs and Excise to publish reports in which it has concluded that it should not proceed to criminal proceedings. That would be an extremely unusual step to take. My understanding of the investigation that took place was that it went into all features of that transaction. I made the point that it was a transaction between two other sovereign countries; we had no input and, indeed, no evidence, about how they had funded the arrangement between the two of them. However, we looked at the British entity that was involved.
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1103
All I can say—and when this is the case, it should be said—is that in the view of Customs and Excise no criminal act was committed. For those reasons it does not seem reasonable that the company should be exposed to any further report of that kind.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not know whether I should declare an interest, because my daughter works for the United Nations in the DRC. I want to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury in respect of the OECD experts' report, which covered wider issues of UK companies engaging in corrupt transactions in the DRC, which has led to its total state revenue being less than £1 billion. When will we devote the necessary resources at this end to the prosecution of the acts to which this Question relates and the prosecution of corruption by UK companies in the DRC, using the powers that the Government very properly took three years ago to prosecute extraterritorial corruption?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not believe that that question is difficult—or at least it is not as difficult as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, nearly managed to direct at me earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is quite right—the powers do exist, and a good deal of resource is put into that. That resource will be further focused because, as noble Lords know, one outcome of the Gleneagles discussions placed huge emphasis on eliminating corruption, not just by regimes in other countries, but with an obligation placed quite rightly on ourselves to eliminate corruption. I stand squarely behind that position.
There are always difficulties in law in obtaining the sort of evidence that is required, but the effort to obtain it is very forceful indeed. If anybody is aware of any evidence that should be taken into account, I give a straightforward undertaking in this House that I will ensure that that evidence is placed in front of the prosecuting authorities.
Business of the House: Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]
3.19 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord President on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Committee stage of the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill from Wednesday 20 July to Tuesday 19 July.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1104
Business of the House: Grand Committee Motions
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given for the three Motions set down for today referring instruments to a Grand Committee to be moved en bloc.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have a point of information. I have no intention of objecting to the Motion. It may be that as I have not given notice of this question the noble Lord is unable to answer it. However, am I right in thinking that these three Motions concern Scottish legislation and, if so, why are we dealing with orders emanating from Scottish legislation? Perhaps the noble Lord has the answer to that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not but I presume that they are reserved matters for Westminster.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an assumption. Will he follow that up with a letter to me, and place a copy in the Library of the House, confirming that that is the position? If this is amending English legislation, will it be dealt with by the appropriate departmental Minister rather than by the Scottish spokesman? Can that letter be sent to me before the matter is dealt with in the Moses Room?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall send a letter immediately this exchange has finished. I understand that the referral has been agreed between the usual channels. Therefore, there must have been some debate. I believe that the orders will be taken next Tuesday by my noble and learned friend Lady Clark who was introduced today and who is a Minister dealing with Scottish affairs.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know whether it is great impertinence to assist the Deputy Leader of the House but I have studied the orders. It seems that they make amendments to United Kingdom Bills, which have been made necessary by decisions of the Scots Parliament on devolved matters. That is what I understand to be the case. I do not know whether that is of assistance.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am even more confused. Therefore, we shall be dealing with secondary legislation to make amendments to UK legislation, but emanating from legislation that has been passed in the Scottish Parliament, on which we have had no say. I find that rather strange. I am very much looking forward to the letter that the noble Lord will send to me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1105
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2005
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the next three Motions standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business of the House: Unstarred Question
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following Unstarred Question be referred to a Grand Committee:
The Viscount Astor—To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to promote the art market in light of the proposed implementation of the European Union Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Equality Bill [HL]
3.23 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 45 [Religion and belief]:
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 25, line 22, leave out "means any religious or philosophical belief" and insert "has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 210 with which it is grouped and which covers the same point.
We now come to the difficult area of defining religion and belief. It has been suggested to me by the Humanist Association, of which I am a vice-president, that a definition which diverges from that of the European Convention on Human Rights is liable to cause some difficulty. We would prefer wording that ensures that "belief" is interpreted in line with case law under the ECHR, making it clear that the beliefs intended are those that amount to a world view or life stance. The German text of the ECHR refers to Weltanschauung.
We have discussed this before in the context of the Charities Bill. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated Article 9 of the ECHR into our law, and it says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
There is therefore no need for a definition separate from that which "belief" already has in UK law as a result of the Human Rights Act. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |