House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Jul 1991

Mr. Bennett : It is quite in order for a health authority to explain to the people who live in its area the proposals that it is making to become a national health service trust. Indeed, it is vital for it to do so, because in recent weeks there has been misleading publicity in the local paper. That publicity, which was produced by the Labour candidate for Pembroke and supplied by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), was incorrect and he had to apologise. The article was headed "Labour Apology for Health Chief", and related to information provided by the hon. Gentleman, which he leaked from a Select Committee hearing whose minutes have not been published.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Barristers' Investigations

28. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the scope of privilege enjoyed by barristers investigating alleged criminal behaviour on behalf of individuals or organisations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) : Legal professional privilege relating to the discharge by a lawyer of instructions received from his client exists for the protection of the client and forms part of the general law of evidence.

Mr. Dalyell : What discussion took place between the Certification Officer and Government officials before the decision was taken to prosecute Mr. Scargill, Mr. Heathfield and the National Union of Mineworkers last September? Was there or was there not collusion? Have the Government advised the Certification Officer, Matthew Wake, to appeal? Why do the Government allow the Treasury Solicitor to work for the Certification Officer when he is meant to be independent? What is the cost of the case? Why did the Government pass information to the sequestrator?

Column 641

The Attorney-General : The Certification Officer is an entirely independent statutory office-holder for whom I have no ministerial responsibility whatsoever. The prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was brought by the Certification Officer in the exercise of his independent discretion. The Treasury Solicitor undertakes work for certain independent bodies and office-holders--for example, magistrates-- and the staff are well aware of their obligation in that activity to exercise an independent professional judgment. I am unable to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question for which, again, I have no responsibility. As to the cost of the case, I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave a written answer on that the other day.

Mr. Fraser : When judicial inquiries such as the Scarman or Woolf inquiries take place, neither the conclusions of the inquiry nor the evidence that is given to it are used as evidence of other offences against those giving the evidence--that is a matter of practice and sometimes a matter of law. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it might be wise of him to issue similar guidelines for inquiries that are carried out by, say, a trade union or a local authority so that the setting up of such internal inquiries is not discouraged, and to ensure that witnesses who give evidence to such inquiries are not later prosecuted?

The Attorney-General : I am not sure that I follow the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not for me to lay down guidelines about the instructions that a trade union or any other body gives to the professional people who carry out investigations on its behalf. There is no special rule relating to the admissibility in subsequent proceedings of the evidence that is given on such occasions. The ordinary rules of the general law of evidence govern that matter.

Crown Prosecution Service

29. Mr. Carrington : To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the Crown prosecuting service continues to rely on outside agents for the conduct of prosecution work in the magistrates courts.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : In the first three months of 1991, the proportion of cases handled by agents fell to 31 per cent. of sittings and I hope that it will fall further in the remainder of the year.

Mr. Carrington : The reduction in the reliance on agents is greatly to be welcomed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that is caused at least partly by the satisfactory increase in recruitment to the Crown prosecution service?

The Solicitor-General : My hon. Friend is right. It is much more satisfactory for the Crown prosecution service to be able to handle a higher proportion of cases itself. That is more satisfactory for the lawyers in the Crown prosecution service and raises their morale. My hon. Friend is right that the reduction in the use of agents stems substantially from the improved recruitment of the past year. During the past four years, there has been an increase of 604 legal staff in the Crown prosecution service, with a net increase of 212 in the past year alone.

Column 642

30. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases referred to the Crown prosecution service resulted in criminal proceedings being commenced, during each year since the creation of the Crown prosecution service.

The Solicitor-General : The commencement of cases is normally for the police. In the four years to 1990-91, the proportion of cases in which the Crown prosecution service, in the exercise of its review function, decided not to proceed in the magistrates court was 7.3, 8, 8.9 and 9.4 per cent.

Mr. Hughes : The Solicitor-General will be aware that there is often distress for the families of people who have died or for those who have been the victims of an accident or an injury when no proceedings follow. We have all encountered such cases and the aggrieved relatives. Is there any way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could formalise the review procedure or institute an appeals procedure at the behest of the families so that they can know that their case is being looked at again and can be involved more publicly in the procedure?

The Solicitor-General : I think that that would be a dangerous course to pursue. However, I fully understand the sensitivity with which any case that involves death has to be treated. The Crown prosecution service takes immense care when considering whether it is right to bring a prosecution in such cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in a free society, it is essential that the prosecution decision should ultimately be taken entirely independently--as it is.

Small Claims Court

32. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Attorney-General what is the current jurisdiction of the small claims court.

The Solicitor-General : From 1 July 1991, defended money claims for an amount not exceeding £1,000 are referred to arbitration in a county court under the small claims procedure. Claims above £1,000 may be referred to arbitration if one of the parties so requests and the district judge agrees.

Mr. Marshall : Can cases for personal injury be referred to the small claims court in the same way as cases for minor debt?

The Solicitor-General : Yes, Sir. Personal injury cases can be dealt with in the small claims court either if the plaintiff recognises that the damages will be genuinely small and limits the claim to £1,000 or if an application to do so is made to the district judge and he agrees.

Serious Fraud Office

33. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General : The Serious Fraud Office continues to make an increasing contribution to the detection and prosecution of commercial fraud.

Mr. Banks : Many people feel that the Government do not take white- collar crime seriously. Perhaps if the Serious Fraud Office had the necessary resources, the fraud surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce

Column 643

International would not have taken place. Even if the office were to acquire the extra resources, what would be the point of its putting all that effort into arresting white-collar criminals such as Ernest Saunders and Gerald Ronson if, once such people have been put in prison, they are let out soon afterwards?

The Attorney-General : The hon. Gentleman has asked about five questions, not all of which deal with areas for which I am responsible. As I pointed out in an answer a few weeks ago, the Serious Fraud Office has brought some 54 cases to trial in its first two years of existence, and more than two thirds of the defendants have been convicted.

I am not aware of any significant shortage of resources. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the BCCI case. The papers were sent from the Bank of England to the Serious Fraud Office on Friday and today formal acceptance of the case by the Serious Fraud Office has been announced. As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentences are not a matter for me.

Enforcement of Covenants

34. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the enforcement of covenants.

The Solicitor-General : The enforcement of covenants is essentially a matter of private law. There may be instances, for example section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in which Parliament gives a public authority a right to enforce a restrictive covenant as if the authority were an adjoining landowner.

Covenants relating to land may confer rights on the public, in which case it is open to the Attorney-General to lend his name to a relator action for their enforcement.

Mr. Thurnham : Where local authorities have a duty to enforce planning covenants, will my right hon. and learned Friend remind them that they have a duty to do so responsibly and robustly, and that they should not run up the white flag and run away at the first signs of aggressive development?

The Solicitor-General : I am well aware of the deep interest in my hon. Friend's constituency about such matters. His views will have been heard and understood.

Weapons Protocols

35. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Attorney-General what further representations he has received seeking changes in international protocols on the use of weapons ; and what response he has made.

The Attorney-General : I have not received any representations further to those made by the hon. Gentleman on 17 June.

Mr. Flynn : Has the Attorney-General had the opportunity to study annex VII of the presidency conclusions of the recent European summit and seen the splendid recommendations there about avoiding the over-armament of the world? A new arms race is taking place which threatens the stability of the world and world peace. It threatens, too, to impoverish many third- world countries. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we are to achieve the aims and fulfil the recommendations of the European summit, there must be

Column 644

some changes and that there must be some new negotiations on the protocols concerning weapons of mass destruction?

The Attorney-General : I have not had the opportunity to read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I certainly agree that if there is over-armament, by definition it is a bad thing. Whether we move towards making more changes in any international instrument is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not for me. Although I have numerous responsibilities, they do not extend that far.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Zimbabwe

37. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid given to Zimbabwe since its independence.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker) : Gross bilateral aid disbursements totalled over £257 million up to December 1990, including loan disbursements by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Marshall : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on the amount of money given to the people of Zimbabwe. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the most effective growth policy for Zimbabwe would consist of the adoption of a social market economy and the abolition of price controls?

Mrs. Chalker : My hon. Friend is right. That is why we welcome the commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe to the economic reform programme. They have a hard road ahead, but during my talks last week with the President, the Minister of Finance and others I was convinced that the proposals that will emerge on 25 July will encompass exactly what my hon. Friend wishes to see. It is good news that the lifting of the price freeze which began in 1988 is to be extended.

Mrs. Clwyd : Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to bring immediate and significant benefits to third-world countries such as Zimbabwe would be to roll back restrictions on trade and address the debt crisis? Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister, at the G7 summit next week, to urge positive action to help developing countries, by implementing and extending the Trinidad terms, relieving debt owed to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, setting in train a new international initiative on reducing commercial debt and reducing interest rates worldwide?

Mrs. Chalker : On the subject of trade, the hon. Lady will have heard me say in the debate on 14 December last how critical it is for developing nations that the GATT round should give them the opportunity of access to all the major markets of the world, particularly those of the EC. The Government are actively pursuing that aim.

I can tell the hon. Lady, too, that, as it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who first proposed the Trinidad terms, she need have no fear that we have not been working non-stop to try to ensure that they will not only be discussed at the G7 meeting but, I hope, accepted, even by those nations that were not so committed as we

Column 645

have been from the beginning to relieve debt and to extend the relief for those countries that are undertaking economic reforms so that they can have a real chance for the future.

Good Government

38. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress in implementing the policy on good government since his speech to the Overseas Development Institute in June 1990.

43. Mr. Mans : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the policy on good government since June 1990.

Mrs. Chalker : As I said in my speech at Chatham House on 25 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, good government in support of sustainable development is an essential approach in our aid programme. Other donors, including the EC and multilateral agencies, are following similar policies. We are committed to a target of £50 million in the coming year for direct assistance towards projects promoting good government.

Mr. Mitchell : My right hon. Friend will receive and deserve the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important initiative. Is she achieving any success in persuading her counterparts in the EC to adopt a similar policy on a co-ordinated basis? Will she note that, although the policy has been extremely successful in respect of Ghana, it has been most unsuccessful in respect of Burma?

Mrs. Chalker : We spent Saturday and Sunday discussing good government and aid in an EC context at an informal Development Ministers meeting in Holland. I am glad to say that our concern that good government should be encouraged is shared by all our 11 partners in the European Community and even more widely than that. The Scandinavian nations, the United States of America, Canada and nearly all the major donors now believe that good government must be among the ways in which we encourage developing countries to improve their performance. It is true that Ghana has made some brave steps and there are encouraging signs, particularly now that the Provisional National Defence Council has invited political exiles to return. With Burma, in respect of which we have no Government aid programme, the outlook is very bleak indeed.

Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from promoting good government, the initiative also means that money from the British taxpayer is more likely to be spent correctly in third-world countries than was the case in the past?

Mrs. Chalker : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we can get recipient Governments to show positive accountability to the people and to be transparent in their conduct of affairs, we can be far more sure that our money has reached the place for which it was intended.

Mr. Sedgemore : Would not it aid good government and sustainable development if Britain gave humanitarian aid to Cambodia rather than military aid to the allies of the

Column 646

Khmer Rouge? Is not it a scandal that Treasury counsel spent five hours in the High Court of Justice on Friday arguing that details of the military aid given to the allies of the Khmer Rouge should be kept from the British public?

Mrs. Chalker : I suppose that I should no longer be surprised at the hon. Gentleman. All that I can say to him is that the British Government have never supported the Khmer Rouge and never will support the Khmer Rouge. The British Government help the people of Cambodia through some non- governmental organisations. We do not have a government-to-government aid programme. I only hope that, with other donors, we shall soon be able to help the Cambodian people as a result of the comprehensive political settlement on Cambodia that we hope will be achieved.

Mr. Mullin : The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows as well as everyone else in the House that the Government have been providing military and other aid to terrorists who are allies of the Khmer Rouge. I appreciate that that is not directly her responsibility, but when will we start aiding the people in Cambodia who are helping to rebuild that country rather than the people who are helping to destroy it?

Mrs. Chalker : The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said in response to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I have said, and I repeat, that we are ready and willing, with other donors, to help the people of Cambodia in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. We have never given aid to the Khmer Rouge. We will not give aid to the Khmer Rouge. That is exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I have said it before in the House.

South Africa

40. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to aid development in poor areas in South Africa ; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker : We are already doing so. Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans is designed to benefit people disadvantaged by apartheid throughout South Africa. We are involved in education, housing, community development and health.

Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome ending of apartheid must mean--

Mr. Tony Banks : It has not ended.

Mr. Greenway : The approaching end of apartheid--I accept the hon. Gentleman's point--must mean that the South African economy will develop more rapidly and strongly? Will not that benefit all sections of the community and if there is any danger of its not doing so, will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that it does?

Mrs. Chalker : We have repeatedly stressed that the lifting of the apartheid legislation in South Africa should pave the way for investment into South Africa. The one thing that the black South African needs more than anything is investment in industry and training. That should happen as soon as possible. We have made good

Column 647

progress in the European context. Good progress is being made in South Africa. I welcome the announcement at the ANC conference that there was a need for flexibility in the lifting of sanctions.

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Kenneth Baker--statement.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Column 648

Mr. Speaker : Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had just been told that I take points of order in their usual place immediately after statements.

Mr. Williams : I thought that it was after questions.

Mr. Speaker : No, not after questions--after the statements.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page