20 Feb 2007 : Column 997
House of Lords
Tuesday, 20 February 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
Police: Art and Antiquities Unit
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How they will maintain the independence of the Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiquities Unit if it is to be funded by individual companies within the private sector.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, operational matters are the responsibility of the commissioner. Under Section 93 of the Police Act 1996, a police authority may accept gifts or loans, including commercial sponsorship, for any activity of the authority or of the police force it maintains. It is for the authority to determine the appropriate terms for the acceptance of such gifts or loans. The control and tasking of officers in sponsored posts remain with the chief officer of the force concerned.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. The Minister will be aware of the very fine reputation enjoyed by the Metropolitan Police’s art and antiquities squad; the only specialist art squad in this country, which I believe numbers four officers, compared to 250 in Italy. But is the Minister confident that there is not the risk of a conflict of interest here? I am sure that the police would not invite drug barons to fund a drugs squad, but is there not the serious risk of a situation arising where he who pays the piper calls the tune?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that there is, because operational control remains with the commissioner, not the sponsors. Like all UK police forces, the Metropolitan Police is open to accept offers of sponsorship and support. So far as I am concerned, this arrangement works perfectly well.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiquities Unit consists of just four police officers and three civilians—hardly an unaffordable burden on the Home Office budget—and polices upwards of 37,000 people; the second-largest art market in the world? That market is easily made a conduit for fraud, money laundering and the funding of organised crime. Without casting any aspersion on the integrity and competence of the present staff, if it is to be a condition of the continuation of the unit that it raises half its costs in sponsorship, will not this be an open invitation to corruption and, in the real sense of the term, a cop-out?
20 Feb 2007 : Column 998
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for that last line but I do not believe that it will be a cop-out. So far as I understand it, there is no threat to the current staffing levels of the unit. I also understand that, because of the valuable work that is undertaken by special constables, there has already been expansion of the unit’s activities. I do not think that one should have any doubt about the competence of those working in the unit; it is very competent. The Metropolitan Police is in a sense seeking funding so that it can expand the unit’s range of activities.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister says that he is very happy with the competence of the unit. I would be surprised if a Minister was unhappy with four people managing the £100 million area of art theft. Will the Minister say whether the 14 special constables plus four full-time staff will be able to deal with the money laundering activities of those who use art for money laundering, and especially those who are importing artefacts from Iraq that have been looted and are being sold on the British market?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is obviously for the commissioner to determine operational priorities, and he believes that he has it about right. There is a desire to expand the unit, and seeking sponsorship to enable that to happen is very important. The unit gets very useful back-up and support from special constables, many of whom come from the sector that is most affected and have knowledge and experience. There is great confidence in this unit, which does a very valuable job.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having heard my noble friend Lord Renfrew explain how many policemen are engaged in this activity in Italy, does it not seem absolutely self-evident that the case here should be for more personnel dealing with this extremely serious branch of illegal activity?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I return to the point that I have made already. Clearly, the commissioner is very well aware of the problem; indeed, I am sure he could not fail to be otherwise. But this is a matter for his judgment on operational grounds, and that is the best way for us to leave it. I have little doubt that the commissioner will pay very close attention to what noble Lords have said today.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord not concerned about the dispersal of police expertise in this area, following the experience of police officers who have been released from the stolen vehicles squad, with the resulting increase in crime in that area? Is he confident that this group of very expert and experienced police officers will remain in place and will be able to prevent the kind of escalation in crime that we are seeing in vehicle crime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that this unit will be dispersed. It is the intention of the Metropolitan Police to try to find ways of expanding its range of activity. Although the
20 Feb 2007 : Column 999
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the interests of joined-up government, and bearing in mind the Government’s accession in 2002 to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, bearing in mind the sacking of the Baghdad museum in 2003, which led to the passage of the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003, and bearing in mind the passage through this Parliament of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act, does it not seem perverse for the Government at this moment to cut resources, particularly when the departments concerned are aiming to take more measures to stem the illicit trade in cultural objects?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had made this clear. There is no intention, as I understand it, in the Metropolitan Police service to cut the activity of this unit; far from it. The intention is to seek further support so that the activities of the unit can be expanded, no doubt for the very reasons that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have given voice to this afternoon. It does a very valuable job, and it has a very good track record. It is greatly respected across the industry, and no doubt the continued support that it enjoys here and in other places will be much welcomed.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, would the Government be prepared to put in the Library an indication of all the police units whose work is dependent on acquiring additional private sponsorship to enlarge their activities, or is this a unique case?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, different forces have different sponsorship arrangements. I am quite happy to try to provide the information that the noble Lord seeks in a format that can be easily understood. That can be a matter of public record.
Council of Europe: State Immunity
2.44 pm
Baroness D'Souza asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What assessment they have made of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe’s recommendation to adopt a Council of Europe legal instrument on state immunity and serious human rights violations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we have carefully considered the recommendations made by the secretary-general in the context of his inquiry into extraordinary renditions. However, as stated in the other place on 23 November, the Government believe that domestic legislation and international legal instruments already exist to deal satisfactorily with the
20 Feb 2007 : Column 1000
Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I recognise that this is a complex and sensitive area of law, in that it deals with diplomatic relations between countries. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that, for several years now, serious human rights crimes have no longer been considered the internal affair of a given country but concern the international community as a whole? Would not, therefore, a review of the rules on immunity, under the aegis of the Council of Europe, be a good thing?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: these are matters of international concern. For that reason we believe that they are best discussed within the forum of the UN. They were last discussed in the UN in 2004, when there was absolutely no consensus on these issues.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the doctrine of state immunity arose from the concept of state sovereignty and that its purpose was to facilitate diplomacy and conflict resolution and so to protect people? Does she accept that it ought not to be used to prevent people from being protected? Does she agree with Kofi Annan that no legal principle, not even sovereignty, should be permitted to shield crimes against humanity?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, indeed, prevention is absolutely key in these matters, and no law should be used to shield people who have committed atrocities. We hope that perpetrators of serious human rights violations will be tried by courts that have jurisdiction over them, but not every court has jurisdiction over wrongdoing in every part of the world.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answers will bring dismay across the Council of Europe? In her Answer, she suggests that the United Nations is the right place to deal with this matter rather than the Council of Europe. Is it not the case that this country is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, that it is a member of the Council of Europe and that the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe has identified a pressing problem, which is that the exceptions for human rights to state immunity are not sufficiently clear because they do not go beyond torture and deal, for example, with what is euphemistically called enforced disappearance? Would she ask her colleagues to reconsider their position, to support the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and to ensure that we have a British representative on the ad hoc committee with a view to producing a proper international instrument on that?
20 Feb 2007 : Column 1001
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I well understand the disappointment of the Council of Europe on these issues. As I understand it, the ad hoc committee does not as yet exist, one reason being that no member state has put forward any names. I believe that support for the secretary-general’s report is very slim among member states, so the UK is not alone in its attitude towards these issues and in its feeling they are best discussed and agreed in the United Nations, which now has a responsibility to protect.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that whereas what she says about support being very slim among the member states in the Council of Europe might be correct, that is not the case among members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where parliamentarians from right across the European continent meet and overwhelmingly support the view expressed by Mr Terry Davis, the secretary-general?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I fully acknowledge that the views of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are solid on this matter. However, it is the member states of the Council of Europe that have decision-making powers.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords—
Lord Soley: My Lords, can we make it absolutely clear—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is time for the Conservatives.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to pass this to the United Nations is a total waste of time, when it has been able to do nothing about Burma, nothing about Zimbabwe and extremely little about Darfur?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: No, my Lords. Perhaps the United Nations has not been doing enough—the UK Government are pressing it to move much further than it has in Darfur—but resolutions have been passed, discussions are taking place in the Security Council and there is action in Darfur thanks to the UN’s actions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while getting improvement in the laws from the United Nations must be the ultimate objective, an agreement in the Council of Europe would increase pressure on the United Nations to accept laws that reduce immunity?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: That may well be the case, my Lords, but agreement has to be sought and found within the Council of Europe, and we are a long way from that yet.
20 Feb 2007 : Column 1002
Lord Soley: My Lords, can we make it clear that the principles underlying the Council of Europe’s report are ones that we sign up to? The problem as I understand it is that the ad hoc committee is made up of 46 members, if it is set up, and it is split into three sub-committees: on state immunity, air transport and the secret services of existing members. That is a very convoluted way of reaching agreement on something that we are already negotiating or have agreed in the UN convention and some of the other conventions—and, indeed, in our own domestic law. We must emphasise that the principles are right but that it is important to pay some attention to the efficiency of going about reaching agreement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that the principles are absolutely correct but I must restate the Government’s belief that domestic legislation and international legal instruments already exist to deal satisfactorily with the concerns raised.
Post Offices
2.52 pm
Baroness O'Cathain asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How many post offices and sub-post offices have closed since 1997; and whether they have established a minimum number of offices in rural and suburban areas to reflect the Government’s policy on sustainable local communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Truscott): My Lords, since 1997, 21 Crown post offices have closed, and there has been a net reduction of 4,818 sub-post offices, including the managed closure of 2,486 urban sub-post offices under the urban reinvention programme. The Government’s proposals for the future of the post office network, which I announced in your Lordships’ House on 14 December last, set out access criteria to ensure that communities across the country continue to have nationwide access to post office services.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On the point he raises about access, it is said that there will be access to a post office within three miles. Will he confirm that? But it will still be of no help to elderly, vulnerable people living in hamlets where there is a post office under threat of closure. Only yesterday we were told by the Lord Chancellor that this is “a listening Government”. Did the Government listen to the 4 million people who signed a protest last year saying, “Please don’t close these post offices”? It seems that a relentless move is on to close ever more of these post offices; but they are lifelines for some people. Are the Government now putting commercial issues way above social requirements?
Lord Truscott: Absolutely not, my Lords. Of the 14,300 post offices that exist, only 4,000 are commercially viable. The Government are putting in an investment of £1.7 billion between now and 2011, and we have
20 Feb 2007 : Column 1003
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that quality of life is high on the political agenda these days. Everyone is talking about it. The rich are getting richer and the poor seem to be left; quality of life is vastly important. Does he agree that post offices which are at the heart of communities enhance quality of life?
Lord Truscott: Yes, my Lords; that is absolutely the case. I agree with my noble friend. That is why we are actively supporting a viable post office network that will ensure that vulnerable communities in both rural and urban areas are properly serviced.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister explain why—and if not, will he ask the Post Office to explain why—the Post Office has stopped the training of non-Post Office employees to work under licence in local community shops?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, I have no information on that point, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord after I have looked into it.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if the post office network is to be maintained at a level which I know all sides of this House would wish to see, then significant creative thinking will be required by the Government, because this cannot be a question just of subsidy? If it is simply a question of subsidy, then, as I am sure the Minister will accept, there will be significantly more post office closures. Is he aware of the work that, for example, Age Concern has done? It advocates a social enterprise model which will require action not only from his department but from Defra and can provide small grants and specific skills to help to ensure an increase in the post office network.
Lord Truscott: My Lords, I welcome Age Concern’s work in this area. The Government are making efforts to ensure that, for example, small remote communities are reached by establishing 500 outreach outlets which will include mobile post offices and services in village halls, community centres and pubs.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |