| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Even more important in the light of the awful happenings during the past weekend and the security issues, security renovations to the exterior by St Stephen’s entrance, which are a key priority, were meant to have been completed by October last year. I was told today that the department does not have the slightest idea when they will be completed. When does the noble Lord expect the work to be done, and when will the building be made as safe as possible, especially in the light of recent events?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give a starting date for the cleaning of the remaining courtyards. As I said in my Answer, there are other priorities for maintenance of the building. The cast-iron roofs and the modernisation of the palace’s mechanical and electrical services are two of the major things that need to be done to this ancient building. The problem with cleaning the courtyards is, to some extent, that normally that can only be done in recesses because it involves not just cleaning but repairs to the stonework, windows and the drainage, which is noisy and disruptive. Also, it is not possible to do this work when another project is under way. For example, the refurbishment of the Refreshment Department, which finished last year, meant that the courtyard there had to be used for that rather than be cleaned.
I agree with the noble Lord that there has been a most undesirable delay to the opening of the visitor reception building. It was intended to be opened, as the noble Lord said, last year. There have been all kinds of problems, with the contractors, the architects and so on. I can only say that I hope the building will be open by the time we return after the Summer Recess.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, which are the priorities: for example, cleaning the place, opening the visitor centre or the world squares project and closing the road? Which does the noble Lord think will come first?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, they are separate projects. The opening of the visitor reception building is going on at the moment; it is subject to bad delays, but that has no impact on the remaining areas of the building which need to be cleaned. I answered a question about the world squares project not very long ago and I had little news to report on it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the dirt on the building, which I assume was caused by the smog before the Clean Air Acts, causing additional damage to it; and, therefore, is the delay in cleaning it increasing the costs substantially?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is a project looking at the best way of doing the next phases of cleaning. A review has begun to ensure that
2 July 2007 : Column 807
Madagascar: UK Embassy
3.03 pm
Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether, in view of recent developments in Madagascar, they will now consider reopening the United Kingdom embassy in that country.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, there are no plans to revisit the decision taken to close the embassy in Antananarivo. We now have agreement for our non-resident ambassador, and we look forward to his first official visit within the next two months.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she not agree with me that, given recent developments—I point to just three: the constitution of Madagascar was changed a few months ago to make English an official language of the island; secondly, the president and Government have indicated their interest in eventually becoming members of the Commonwealth; and, thirdly, the levels of industrial investment from this country into Madagascar are steadily increasing—it is not absurd that the diplomatic representation should simply be an honorary consul with only powers suitable to that, and that the nearest ambassador is 1,000 miles away, in Mauritius?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we very much welcome the fact that English is now the third language in Madagascar; it is good for the Madagascans and for British industry. We would be delighted if Madagascar wanted to become a Commonwealth member and look forward to its continued development. However, we are confident that the new non-resident ambassador will take these issues very seriously, work well with the Government of Madagascar and pursue their interests.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as we are discussing the Foreign Office’s work, perhaps I may say in parenthesis that, although the noble Baroness answers Foreign Office questions superbly, we will greatly miss her noble friend Lord Triesman, who has moved to other pastures and has been an outstanding master of the brief, both as a Minister and in answering questions in this House. We wish him well but also that he had not gone.
2 July 2007 : Column 808
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, part of an overall squeeze on the diplomatic budget, which is, by Whitehall standards, minuscule at £1 billion? Some departments regard that as small change; yet our diplomacy has been squeezed and squeezed and embassies have had to be closed.
Would the noble Baroness urge her colleagues under the new dispensation to consider whether a better, more balanced approach might be adopted? More should be spent on effective diplomacy and soft-power development, and we should stop going round the world closing embassies in places where there is a demand for effective British representation, which has now been taken away.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful for the fulsome tribute to my noble friend Lord Triesman, who is indeed deserving of it. It has been a delight to work with him.
The resources available to the Foreign Office, as in any other government department, are finite. The Foreign Office is battling with the CSR. However, the decision to close the embassy in Madagascar was not simply about costs. The Government have to ensure that their Foreign Office is following 21st-century priorities. Those are to do with fighting terrorism and international crime. As global priorities change, so must those of the Foreign Office. I respectfully point out that, whereas some missions are closing, others have been opened and additional diplomatic staff have been deployed in other embassies.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, from these Benches, I echo the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. We greatly appreciate and are grateful for his enormous contribution, not only to your Lordships, but also to the cause of Africa in the Foreign Office.
My Lords, bearing in mind not only the three factors mentioned by my noble friend but also that Madagascar is larger than the next two countries put together in which British embassies were closed in 2005-06, and that oil has now been discovered there, would the noble Baroness say how many times our high commissioner has visited Antananarivo in the past two years?
Secondly, why is Madagascar not in the list of countries receiving help from DfID, bearing in mind that 61 per cent of its population has to live on less than a dollar a day? Is that not inconsistent with our policy of helping the poorest of the poor?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Since my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean announced our embassy’s closure in 2005, we have been pressing for our new non-resident ambassador to be accredited. That is now happening and is warmly welcomed. He will make his first visit within the next two months.
Although DfID does not give money directly to Madagascar, we should not forget that a substantial contribution is made through core contributions to the EU, the UN, the World Bank and others.
2 July 2007 : Column 809
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I declarean interest as a patron of a charity, Money for Madagascar. Clearly, no non-resident ambassador and, no honorary consul can have the weight of a resident professional diplomat. There has been damage to British interests during the past two years. In consular matters, I cite the Wilkinson case; in business, there have been major developments in minerals, oil and gas sectors. Why cannot the Government at least be creative and have one professional resident British diplomat housed in the embassy of a friendly country, as has happened in Togo, which would at least ensure that there is a professional on the scene to safeguard British interests?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as I stated earlier, we are confident that our non-resident ambassador will be able to protect British interests in Madagascar. However, the idea put forward by my noble friend is interesting. It may well have already been discussed by the Foreign Office; if it has not, I will certainly ensure that it is drawn to its attention.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in fully associating myself with the remarks made about the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I remind the House—I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord—that he has given us several assurances during the past few months that the Government would continue to pursue a global foreign policy. Can the Minister assure us that that will be borne in mind when the Comprehensive Spending Review is conducted and the Foreign Office’s minute budget is reviewed?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance and am sure that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State will indeed do everything that he can to ensure that there is a proper global foreign policy in the British Government.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is or is shortly to be European Union representation in Madagascar?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I will certainly inform the noble Lord in due course.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, has the Minister been to Madagascar? When I was there, there was a very small embassy consisting of one and a half men. If she has not been, she will not realise how impossible it is for one man to go from one country a long way away, Tanzania, to a still French-speaking country that is incredibly friendly to Britain. Can she confirm that recently Japan and America have opened embassies in Madagascar?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, sadly, I have not yet been to Madagascar. I note what the noble Baroness says. I do not know about America and Japan, but I will certainly ensure that that information is brought to the attention of the House.
2 July 2007 : Column 810
House of Lords: Divisions
3.13 pm
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, it has been agreed that while the current security level is at critical, the time allowed for Divisions should be extended by three minutes to a total of 11 minutes. This is to allow for the extra time for Members’ cars entering the Palace of Westminster during Divisions to have any necessary security checks. This will apply for the remainder of this week. If the security level remains at critical, a further announcement will be made next week. The Lord on the Woolsack has the discretion under Standing Order 54(4) to delay the locking of the doors at the end of the Division and will exercise that discretion.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we will have a Statement on counter terrorism repeated later this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Scotland, immediately after the Mental Health Bill.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill has been committed that it considers the Bill in the following order:
Schedule 8,Clauses 138 to 145,Schedule 9,Clauses 146 to 149,Schedule 11,Clause 150,Schedule 12,Clauses 151 to 217,Schedule 14,Clauses 218 to 220, Schedule 15,Clauses 221 to 234,Schedule 17,Clauses 235 to 245,Schedules 1 to 7,Schedule 10,Schedule 13,Schedule 16,Schedule 18.—(Baroness Andrews.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
2 July 2007 : Column 811
Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations 2007
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2007
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 8 May, 7 June, 4 June, 6 June and 23 May be approved. 17th and 19th Reports from the Statutory Instruments Committee, Considered in Grand Committee on 26 June.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2007
Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2007
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 16 May and 6 June be approved. 18th and 19th Reports from the Statutory Instruments Committee, Considered in Grand Committee on 26 June.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
3.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
commons amendments[The page and line references are to Bill 76 as first printed for the Lords.]
2 July 2007 : Column 812
“(3) Dependence on alcohol or drugs is not considered to be a disorder or disability of the mind for the purposes of subsection (2) above.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. There is no doubt that, as befitting a Bill which deals with such important subjects, it has been the subject of vigorous debate, both in this House and in the other place. In this House we have had debates which have been informed by the special experience and expertise that noble Lords can bring to bear on this and on many other subjects.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill has benefited from those debates. The Bill that has been sent back to us by the other place is stronger than it would have been without the contribution of this House in identifying and getting to the heart of the issues which are of the most importance. The other place may not have agreed with this House on all those issues, but it is plain that the debate in your Lordships’ House has provided a very important context for the other place’s consideration. I have no doubt that the Bill is the better for it.
As one would expect, the meaning of mental disorder was one of those critical issues identified by your Lordships’ House. The simplified definition itself met with considerable support. Debate concentrated instead on what, if anything, should be excluded from that definition. As noble Lords will recall, there are three exclusions from the definition of mental disorder in Section 1 of the Mental Health Act as it stands: “promiscuity or other immoral conduct”, “sexual deviancy” and “dependence on alcohol or drugs”. The Bill, as first introduced, removed the first two and reworded the third.
On Report, this House replaced that single exclusion with four new exclusions for: substance misuse; sexual identity or orientation; commission, or likely commission, of illegal or disorderly acts; and cultural, religious or political beliefs. This amendment was reversed by the House of Commons.
In introducing his amendment on Report, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
“There needs to be some limit to guard against the inappropriate use of the clinician’s power of detention. Without such limits, the powers are capable of being used, even in a well-intentioned way, as a form of social control”.—[Official Report, 19/2/07; col. 906.]
The Government could not agree more. We believe that those limits are to be found in the Act—in the criteria for detention and in the safeguards which are themselves strengthened by the Bill. But I fully accept that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke for all Members of the House when he went on to say:
“The law should make the position clear. It is not enough for a person to be odd, eccentric or a social misfit; the only legal grounds for compulsory detention are an underlying mental health diagnosis”.—[Official Report, 19/2/07; col. 907.]
Again, we agree. The law should make the position clear; in our view it does. The Bill does not permit any compulsory intervention except where the relevant criteria are met. Those criteria cannot be met except on the basis of a disability or disorder of the mind.
2 July 2007 : Column 813
Although not drafted in that way, the amendment which the other place rejected contained two types of exclusions—substantive exclusions for conditions which are recognised mental disorders and others whose effect is declaratory. The proposal to exclude substance misuse was at least in part an example of the former. It has become clear in the course of debate here and in the other place that “substance misuse” was intended, in the words of the honourable Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Mr Tim Loughton, to ensure that,
- “neither the binge drinker nor the casual consumer of drugs is considered a case for compulsion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/07; col. 1326.]
But there is no such exclusion now, and no reason to believe that such people are being detained. On the other hand, if we did have an exclusion there is a risk that we might prevent the use of the Act in those rare cases where acute intoxication is so severe that detention is a legitimate clinical response.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |