| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
13 Mar 2007 : Column 615
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, although the need for powers of entry is clearly related to public safety, are the Government satisfied that the guarantee of privacy in the Human Rights Act 1998 provides an appropriate remedy for either inappropriate entry or one which is not proportionate to the object?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these are proportionate measures. One of the advantages of the Human Rights Act is that each provision must be HRA compatible. With the energy with which this House scrutinises Bills, we can guarantee that that is the case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if there really are 650 people with a right of entry to any householder’s house, how is the householder to know which has a right and which does not?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are seeking to address that question. The figure for the past 10 years is about 105. As I said, in 1980, when noble Lords opposite were in power, it was about 700, so we have come down since then. The whole issue is that we have to rationalise whether each of these powers of entry is necessary and how it works. That is why we thought it would be a very good idea, when we undertake the PACE review, announced last summer, to look again at whether we can do that. That is what we intend to do; a consultation on that process is imminent.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when will that review be complete?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have indicated that the consultation is imminent. If the noble Lord had asked his question a day later, I would perhaps have given him a fuller response.
Zimbabwe: International Crisis Group
2.50 pm
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their response to the recommendations contained in the recent report of the International Crisis Group entitled Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we welcome the ICG’s latest report and agree with a number of its recommendations, including the need for greater regional engagement. The situation is appalling. I condemn last Sunday’s beatings and arrest of opposition leaders. What is needed now is negotiation between Government and opposition on new, democratic, constitutional agreements and an economic recovery programme to lift Zimbabwe out of the disaster resulting from Mugabe’s policies. Instead, Mugabe has resorted to further violence and intimidation, clinging to power as Zimbabwe crumbles around him.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 616
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply, with which I agree entirely. I would add only that the demonstration two days ago involved the leader of the opposition being assaulted so severely that he had to be hospitalised. Does the Minister agree that the report makes it clear that the Mugabe regime is actually crumbling? I agree with him that the report makes valuable suggestions, and I am glad that the Government are going to take up some of them.
Discussions should begin, as proposed in the report, about taking the question of Zimbabwe to the Security Council of the United Nations. It is relevant that South Africa is now a member.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point. If we can secure enough of a basis in the Security Council for a good discussion without it being blocked, that will be valuable. I hope that people understand the urgency for doing so. Morgan Tsvangirai appeared in court this morning, plainly seriously injured, and has been returned, as others have, to prison. These circumstances call for a robust international response. If anyone needs to learn the lessons, they have only to turn on the television and see the footage of those injured—and very heroic—people.
Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, will Zimbabwe be high on the agenda of the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—in particular, the possibility of Mr Mugabe remaining as president beyond the 2008 elections?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I would be surprised if it were high on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth, arguably just moments before it was removed from it. I know of no intention to re-admit it. It is completely out of line with, paradoxically, the Harare principles for good governance.
I have also heard that Mugabe anticipates carrying on in power well beyond 2008. I do not know whether that will happen, because his economy has more or less imploded. The World Bank is anticipating a rate of inflation that may be approximately 5,000 per cent by the end of the year. These are circumstances from which I believe no economy in peacetime, or probably in wartime, has recovered.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will my noble friend take delivery of a message of solidarity from the House to Morgan Tsvangirai, given the appalling treatment he has received? He is a former friend of ours, a trade union official and a great democrat, and that is the least we can do in these circumstances.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I welcome that, and I will do so. I am hopeful that trade unionists and others throughout the world will convey that message, and that in doing so they also convey it to COSATU in South Africa, where I should like to see the trade union movement also stand shoulder to shoulder.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 617
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the circumstances described by the Minister of Zimbabwe imploding, does he think that the recommendation made by the ICG—that the European Union should engage with SADC in formulating and implementing a strategy for a peaceful transition to post-Mugabe democratic rule—now stands a better and more realistic chance of success? If these discussions do take place between the EU and SADC, will the Minister ensure that one of the matters to be taken up is the humanitarian situation of the victims of Mugabe’s tyranny and in particular those who have been severely injured in the recent attacks on peaceful demonstrators?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I believe that when these matters are resolved the suffering of people in recent days—and over a considerable period—must feature in those discussions. SADC has a responsibility as the regional part of the African Union and plainly ought to play more of a role. In answering the question I am cautious, not because I disagree with the sentiment that lies behind it, but because I have been frustrated on too many occasions by witnessing the fact that leaders in SADC have not been prepared to play that role. We should urge them to do so.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, cannot Her Majesty’s Government bring more pressure to bear on President Mbeki to criticise Mugabe; in fact, to condemn him?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, a number of African presidents—President Obasanjo, former President Chisano of Mozambique and President Mbeki—have probably said rather more privately than is recognised. I am among those who would prefer some of those comments to be made more openly and on the record because they would have a greater effect.
There are deep concerns in South Africa that the current economic implosion may well displace up to 6 million people across the Limpopo into the poorest part of South Africa. That would be a humanitarian and regional security disaster as competition for land, water and other resources would become acute. I believe that everybody wants a robust solution, but one which does not lead to an even worse disaster.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, given the failure of President Mbeki and others to speak out vocally against what is happening in Zimbabwe, would not the visit this week by President John Kufuor of Ghana, who has just taken over the presidency of the African Union, be an ideal moment to raise this issue with him and to engage a nation such as his in trying to broker a way forward in a country that is seeing not only the imprisonment of opposition leaders but the use of tear gas on innocent demonstrators? As the noble Lord told us, the country is sliding into famine and the mortality rate for women is now said to be in the mid-30s. Surely this is a moment to raise this matter during the state visit of President John Kufuor and to bring African leadership behind everything that the noble Lord mentioned.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 618
Lord Triesman: My Lords, President John Kufuor has a very good record in this regard. I should be extremely surprised if this matter were not discussed during the state visit, which I welcome. President Kufuor is an outstanding leader who can play a very important role. When statements are made at the end of the visit, I hope it will be apparent that some of the noble Lord’s wishes will be gratified.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, the noble Lord told us that if enough votes could be obtained in the Security Council a resolution could be passed. What will it take to obtain those votes? How engaged are Her Majesty’s Government in trying to persuade the different embassies and High Commissions in the region to be proactive because dictators know no other language than a very robust response?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I frequently put precisely those points to high commissioners and ambassadors of the region. We want to see this matter expressed in the clearest possible terms. The problem at the Security Council is slightly more complex than the most reverend Primate expressed. Were it to be a matter of simply trying to get the votes, it would be tough but we would have a very good go at it; the difficult task is knowing in advance that you have enough support to make a credible stab at it. I am keen to avoid Robert Mugabe believing that we cannot even get off first base, because if anybody will use that, it is him.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the report recommends that something should be done to prevent a second Murambatsvina—“clearing up”—like the awful operation about two years ago, which Anna Tibaijuka criticised so justly and severely. Is it possible for this Government to at least raise in the United Nations the question of requiring the secretary-general, who I hope is quite distinct from the Security Council, to send a personal representative and a representative to ensure that the follow-up to the Anna Tibaijuka report should not be a second operation of the same kind? Surely that is clear-cut and simple, and is something that could be done and need not rest on votes?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very important point. Ban Ki-Moon has taken account of the fact that the first of these appalling events should not be repeated. He is engaged, and we should press him to continue to be engaged. Even that will not turn out—as I know the noble Baroness knows—to be as simple as it is to say it here. Kofi Annan intended to go there to follow those matters up and to see whether there was a prospect of change before he left office. He was told by Mugabe to stay out of the country. He announced at the African Union conference that he would have no prospect of success in attending. Very few countries in the world tell the secretary-general not to come, and they do so only, in my view, because they have appalling crimes to hide.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 619
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, if it is right to invade Iraq to get rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, who was making life hell for the citizens of Iraq, why is it not right to invade Zimbabwe to get rid of the tyrant Mugabe?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think that there is a prospect of the invasion of Zimbabwe, and I do not want to encourage that thought. The circumstances of the people of Zimbabwe require of us a very high measure of aid and a possibility of reconstruction. The noble Lord may say that that is true in other places as well, but the prospects of being able to do it successfully are bound to be part of what is taken into account.
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007
Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007
Welfare of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations 2007
3.02 pm
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the orders of 22 February referring the draft orders to a Grand Committee be discharged.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Welfare Reform Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Schedule 1,Clauses 2 to 21,Schedule 2,Clauses 22 to 27,Schedule 3,Clause 28,Schedule 4,Clauses 29 to 39,Schedule 5,Clauses 40 to 57,Schedule 6,Clauses 58 to 62,Schedule 7,Clauses 63 to 66,Schedule 8,Clauses 67 to 70.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 620
Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 6 and 7 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee, Considered in Grand Committee on 7 March.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2007
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee and 11th Report from the Merits Committee, Considered in Grand Committee on 7 March.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Government Spending (Website) Bill [HL]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This Bill is a contribution to the transparency and openness of government in the digital age, and my hope is that in another place the Government will embrace it and the future that it embodies.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Noakes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House of Lords: Reform
3.04 pm
Lord Waddington: My Lords, sometimes at this stage of a long debate, there really is nothing new to say.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 621
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have to disappoint noble Lords as I have found that there is something to say. One matter has hardly been discussed at all during our deliberations. Some noble Lords have commented on how the powers of this place may have to change if an elected element is introduced, but I have not heard many suggestions as to the respects in which the powers would or should change. Indeed a large number of noble Lords seem just to assume that, if an elected element were introduced, things would stay more or less as they were, with the primacy of the House of Commons remaining secure. I do not think that there is the slightest chance of that happening, and those who believe it really are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. A 100 per cent elected House, with as good a democratic mandate as the Commons, would feel itself to be and would be its equal.
From time to time, the Government have hinted that the powers of a wholly or partly elected House should be cut. Noble Lords will remember how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made a most extraordinary speech on April Fool’s Day last year in which he made comments to the effect that the powers of a House which had a democratic mandate ought to be cut. It would be nonsensical to do anything of the sort. Far from there being a case for a reformed House having fewer powers, the only really strong argument for making the House “more legitimate”, in the words of Jack Straw, is the need for it to play a larger role, exercising more powers—powers that the people would be reluctant to give a second Chamber if it did not have some democratic legitimacy. It is a pound to a penny that a wholly elected House would demand and eventually win more powers, for such a House would not have just some democratic legitimacy, but would be quite as democratic and legitimate as the other place.
We all agree that this House does a good job as a revising Chamber, but I am rather tired of being told that we add value to the legislative process, as if that is all that we are about. Surely the most important power in the hands of this House is not the power to revise legislation, but the power to block legislation for a meaningful period to make the Commons think again and alert the public and media to what is going on. Most important of all, of course, is the power to veto legislation to prolong the life of a Parliament. If Parliament were to go for an elected House, the perfect opportunity would arise for us to build on those powers, to better protect the fundamental liberties and rights of citizens, and for Parliament as a whole to be a better check on the Executive.
In one obvious respect, the powers of this House are inadequate. When the 1911 Act was passed, it had the consent of both Houses. The House of Lords accepted a new constitutional settlement limiting its powers. But in 1949 the Attlee Government introduced a Bill to amend the Parliament Act and to reduce the Lords' delaying power, and forced it through without the Lords' consent by use of the Parliament Act. It seems strange to us that there was no legal challenge to what the Government did, but
13 Mar 2007 : Column 622
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |