| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Does she agree that, since the 1980s, the number of countries which produce electric-shock equipment has increased fourfold to 130, and that some equipment--notably the electric-shock stun belt--appears to have no other use except as a torture-inflicting device?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the continued production of such equipment is most regrettable and unwelcome. We continue to encourage other countries
to follow our lead and ban the export and transhipment of equipment that has been used for torture. I also agree with my noble friend that the use of stun belts could amount to cruel and inhuman treatment. We have also banned their export and transhipment. We continue to encourage other countries to follow our lead.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how long is the list of instruments of torture?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that I gave a fairly comprehensive list in my Answer. I could repeat them if the noble Baroness so wished, but all those items are included. It is most regrettable that legitimate instruments are sometimes converted in order to be used for such terrible means. We deplore that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as my noble friend used the word "export", perhaps I may ask her whether she can assure the House that no companies producing these instruments abroad are owned by companies or nationals of our country. In other words, this matter concerns not only export but British ownership.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to give my noble friend a firm assurance on that. Certainly we hope that no companies which declare themselves as British are involved in that manner. However, my noble friend will know that British people have now taken up residence all over the world. I am not able to give your Lordships an assurance, but certainly I express the hope and aspiration that no British person is so engaged.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness at least give an assurance that the Government still intend to legislate against the procurement from third countries by British citizens or British companies operating from this country of torture equipment for export to countries that still use it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, by virtue of the prohibition of the export of such equipment and the fact that it is illegal to use that equipment within the United Kingdom, I can assure the noble Lord that the ambit for those who manufacture it is very narrow indeed. For that reason, we do not believe that it has been necessary to ban the equipment. However, we have tried to ensure that it is not exported from our shores or used elsewhere.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the fact that some equipment can, as the Minister said, be used for both torture and other, legitimate, purposes, do the Department of Trade and Industry or her own department keep a list of countries that use torture as one of their major weapons in maintaining
civil order? Could that be borne in mind when considering the export of dual-use instruments of torture?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the concern of this Government is such that staff in overseas posts are taking on board instructions to watch out for the use of torture by their host governments and to make representations where credible reports are received of instruments being used for that purpose. Therefore, we are using our best endeavours to ensure that this issue is highlighted and that we garner as much support as possible for getting rid of such instruments.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, have the Government considered naming and shaming companies that manufacture instruments of torture?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, to the best of our knowledge, there are no such companies in this country. Therefore, the principle of naming and shaming does not apply. However, certainly we remonstrate with those whom we discover to have manufactured those goods.
We are trying to raise the profile of this issue globally. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced in December 2000, a new global lobbying campaign has been launched for the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture. We are commissioning the publication of a torture reporting handbook to enable doctors, lawyers, NGOs and others who come face to face with torture to report it to the relevant international mechanism. Thirteen thousand copies have been distributed in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Arabic, and more than 3,000 copies have been downloaded from the web.
We are also supporting the secondment of a senior UK police officer to assist the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. We are giving significant financial support. We hope that all that, together with the establishment of an International Criminal Court, legislation for which I am glad to say was passed by this House last week, will do much to bring this terrible situation to an end.
Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Stockholm European Summit.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the procedure which I hope will be followed this afternoon in relation to the Hunting Bill. A number of noble Lords indicated to
me that they would have liked the three substantive amendments to be grouped together so that the House would hold a single debate followed by three votes. However, I have received strenuous representations from the Official Opposition, who would prefer three separate debates with a vote at the end of each.As ever, I have tried to produce a solution which gives the House the best of both worlds. In order to meet the wishes of the Official Opposition, the three main amendments have not been grouped. However, I anticipate that many of your Lordships will wish to talk about the three options together and not be constrained to talk about each option separately. Therefore, I suggest that noble Lords who want to discuss the three options together with a single speech should do so when the House debates Amendment No. 1. I hope that the debate on Amendment No. 1 will thus be the substantial debate.
At the end of the first debate, the Committee will vote on option 1--the ban. Then my noble friend the Minister will move Amendment No. 2. At that stage it will be open to any noble Lord who wishes to focus particularly on self-regulation to speak to that amendment. At the end of that debate, we shall vote on option 2. Then the Minister will move Amendment No. 3. Any noble Lord who wishes to focus particularly on hunting under licence--or the so-called "middle way"--can speak at that point. At the end of that debate, we shall vote on option 3.
I know that noble Lords will make their own decisions about when and how to intervene. However, my instinct tells me that the first, more general debate on all three options is likely to be the most substantive. I hope that the debates on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be shorter and more focused and that we shall be able to proceed with votes 2 and 3 without undue repetition or delay. I hope that that helps to clarify matters.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I am delighted to hear that, having been in this House exactly one day more than me, he still believes that our debates might well be focused. Can he clarify one matter about which there appears to be some confusion? Can we assume that every one of the three options will be voted on, no matter what the outcome of the vote on an earlier option? I was under the impression that that was so, but several people tell me that the result of early votes can pre-empt the later votes. Am I right that, for those who want to vote three times, we shall have three votes?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords. I tried to make the matter clear when we debated the procedural Motion approximately a fortnight ago. The three votes are on alternative clauses. No vote is able to pre-empt a subsequent vote. Therefore, there will be a vote on a ban; there will be a vote on self-regulation; and there will be a vote on hunting under licence. The clause which the Committee decides to adopt will remain in the Bill.
Hunting Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hunting with dogs: prohibition]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Notwithstanding what the Chief Whip has just said, I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is disagreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
- Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: Although this amendment is not grouped with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I anticipate that many Members of the Committee will find it impossible to discuss the issue of the ban in isolation. In order to facilitate that, I therefore propose to address all three options in my opening remarks.
The amendments that we debate today would replace the ban on hunting, for which the Bill currently provides, with either self-regulation or statutory regulation. I hasten to point out that I am not suggesting that Members of the Committee should vote for, or against, any particular option. Rather, I am helping the Government to carry out their role as a neutral facilitator of debate and I recognise that the debate has to begin somewhere.
I will say a little more about the three options before the Committee in a moment. First, it may be helpful to remind Members of the Committee of the procedure that we are to follow. The Government's aim has been to ensure that your Lordships have the same choice between the options as did Members of another place and that you are able to express a clear view by voting on each of the options. The Motion that your Lordships passed on 13th March, the day after the Bill's Second Reading, enables precisely that to take place.
As I have explained, the Bill contains a single option, which is the one that was put forward by Deadline 2000 and which would have the effect of banning most hunting with dogs. That was the option selected by Members of another place. Included in the amendments standing in my name are the two other options--that is, the one put forward by the Countryside Alliance, which provides for a scheme involving the self-regulation of hunting, and the one put forward by the Middle Way Group, which provides for a scheme involving the statutory regulation of hunting.
As my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has just explained, at the end of this debate we will vote on whether option one--the ban--should remain in the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will then move Amendment No. 2, which, if carried, would put the self-regulation option in the Bill and replace the ban option, if that had survived the first vote. When that amendment is moved, it is open to any Lord who wishes to speak to it to do so. At the end of that debate, there will be a second vote.
At the end of the second vote, my noble and learned friend will move Amendment No. 3, which, if carried, would put the statutory regulation option in the Bill, replacing any of the other options which may at that point have been in the Bill. Again, any noble Lord wishing to do so will be able to speak to that amendment. There will then follow the third and final vote.
To put it another way, there will be votes on the ban option, the self-regulation option and the statutory regulation option in that order, and the last one that receives a positive vote will be the chosen option.
I remind Members of the Committee that as a result of the procedural Motion that your Lordships adopted, the Bill will then be reprinted and recommitted to a Committee of your Lordships' House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page