House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1995

Mr. Key: That sounds very generous to me. In fact, rumours have already reached my constituents in Salisbury that money has been spent by councillors in Wales to increase their allowances dramatically. That has

Column 12

been confirmed this afternoon. Does my hon. Friend know that those who are most upset by that development are the Liberal Democrats, who control my council, who wanted that money for their own increases?

Mr. Jones: I see--such is the way that the party of the left fights over the spoils as it lurches ever rightwards. Perhaps those councillors need the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who is in the shadow Cabinet because he acts as a messenger boy for the Leader of the Labour party, and is trying to persuade Labour local councillors to keep their increases down to 400 per cent.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

European Courts

25. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General what the estimated legal costs involved in each of the cases coming before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights were over the past two years; and what estimate he has made of the costs to (a) public and (b) private funds resulting from each court decision. [37855]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the two years ending 16 October 1995, the United Kingdom has participated in 95 cases decided in the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and 11 in the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The costs of counsel to date are respectively £412,447 and £299,654, in each case inclusive of VAT. The wider costs, if any, arising from a particular decision are a matter for the relevant departmental Minister.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the horrendous costs to the United Kingdom--not just legal costs but, more important, the cost of implementing the courts' decisions, for example on pregnant Army officers and free prescriptions for the over-60s--is it not time that the Government published some kind of paper explaining the cost to the taxpayer of some of those decisions, which some people in Parliament regard as lunatic? Can my right hon. and learned Friend at least give me an assurance that at next year's intergovernmental conference the Government will strongly endeavour to curb the substantial powers of those courts to interfere in almost every aspect of our way of life in Britain?

The Attorney-General: I well recognise the strong feelings about certain of those judgments of not only my hon. Friend, who has held particular feelings for decades, but of a great many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend will understand that the question of what representations to make to the IGC is a collective decision for Ministers, but some of the points that he has raised are being focused upon as we marshall our case for the IGC.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the problems is that should the House of Lords, as the final Court of Appeal, make a decision that might involve more public expenditure, the House, as a democratic body, can overrule that decision, whereas should the European Court of Justice make a decision involving increased public expenditure, the House, as a democratic assembly, cannot overrule it? Will he make proposals at the IGC next year that national

Column 13

democratic assemblies should have the ability to overrule the European Court of Justice when its decisions involve public expenditure?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman will have it in mind that all member states are involved in this process. He should cast his mind back to the Barber judgment, which looked likely to cost £50 billion of public and private moneys in this country and many billions in other member states. He will recall that, at the previous IGC at Maastricht, the member states, exercising their democratic will, put forward a protocol to remedy the decision of the court--in fact the court subsequently remedied the problem itself. The way to overcome such problems is for member states to act collectively through the IGC. There will be an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Beith: Will the Attorney-General take pains to explain to his Euro-sceptic colleagues, including Ministers, that the European Court of Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union or the IGC? It resulted from treaty obligations that we entered into long before we joined the European Union.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We originally ratified the European convention on human rights as long ago as 1951, and we have applied it as a treaty obligation ever since then. Many people muddle Strasbourg and Luxembourg; I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman does not.

Sir Peter Emery: Would the Attorney-General like to point out to those people who speak about high costs the fact that, in the 106 cases that he mentioned, the legal fees were no more than about £7, 000 per case, which is not the exorbitant price that many people would suppose?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The legal fees are not excessive for slightly more than 100 cases. The other fact that my right hon. Friend will have in mind is that we win a substantial proportion of the cases either in which we intervene, or to which we are parties. In recent years, there have been some significant moves by the court in directions that we would favour, as well as some that receive criticism.

Mr. John Morris: With hon. Members on both sides of the House, we condemn terrorism, but will the Attorney-General note our surprise at the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on the recent judgment of the European Court in the Gibraltar case, including his threats to withdraw or review our adherence to the convention? Specifically, does the Attorney- General agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who has declared that the Government will ignore the ruling? Is that not sheer hypocrisy from a party that poses as a party of law and order? Would it not be better, give quicker justice and be less expensive if the convention were incorporated into our law?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has muddled a good many questions.

The McCann judgment--the Gibraltar case--has no practical effect in our law save in relation to costs. The question of costs will be brought before Ministers in the usual way.

Column 14

However, that judgment caused a great deal of proper public unease. I would have expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have commended the views of the minority in the court. He will remember that the decision was made by only 10 to nine, and that the president of the court took a fundamentally different view from the majority and set it out in concise reasoning with which, in my opinion, every sensible person should agree.

Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that recent decisions under the European convention on human rights are regarded by many of our constituents as an unwarranted interference in the sovereign right of this country to manage its own affairs? Is he further aware that many of our constituents take the view, not that we should ignore the decisions reached by the court or by the Commission of Human Rights, but that the United Kingdom should serve notice to withdraw from the convention?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has his own views, and any question on that is, of course, a collective one for Government, not a matter for me. However, it should not be supposed that we always lose before the European Court of Human Rights or that our record cannot stand honourably with that of other countries. We have given the right of individual petition for far longer than many other countries. Considering our size and the openness of our justice, our record is far more creditable than people realise.

Departmental Work

26. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 19 July. [37856]

The Attorney-General: Since 19 July, my Department has been engaged in carrying out its normal range of duties.

Mr. Mackinlay: How does the Attorney-General account for the disparity of his conduct in relation to possible contempt of court cases? How is it that, with great speed, he has taken contempt of court action against Today regarding tittle-tattle that it published about the Prince of Wales's former housekeeper, but has taken no action against those newspapers that prejudiced an important criminal trial, with the result that the proceedings were aborted, at great cost?

The Attorney-General: I can only attribute the hon. Gentleman's question to his ignorance. What even that Essex man does not seem to realise is that three contempt cases were already in the pipeline before the recent concern was brought to light by the judge at Harrow. I am looking at that carefully.

Mr. Mackinlay: Looking at it carefully?

The Attorney-General: Carefully and fairly, so that I can decide whether to bring proceedings.

As I have said, three cases are to come before the divisional court--two respecting the BBC and one respecting the News of the World . I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that.

Column 15

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Trends

31. Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received on trends in overseas aid during the past three months. [37863]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have received a large number of representations about the level of overseas aid, a great many of them paying tribute to the quality of our programmes.

Mr. Pike: The Government may have given the impression that the budget faced a 12 per cent. cut so that they could introduce a smaller cut. Will the Minister recognise, however, that the public feel that overseas aid should not be reduced by a penny in real terms, but instead should be increased?

Mr. Hanley: We cannot prejudge the outcome of the public expenditure survey, but, whatever happens after the Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme befitting the United Kingdom's status as a country with ties throughout the globe. Ours is the fifth largest economy in the world, and we have the fifth largest aid programme. I believe that our £2.2 billion programme--closely targeted, and concentrating on the poorest in Africa and Asia, with the magnificent support of the British non -governmental organisations--gives value for money far in excess of what some other nations may offer.

Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House deeply appreciate the quality of our aid programme, and its maintenance at a very satisfactory level? We are all concerned about the possibility that anyone should want to reduce it. This year's scare has been much greater than usual, and I hope that that will be taken into account.

Mr. Hanley: As my hon. Friend knows very well, not just the volume but the quality of British aid is at issue. That quality is extremely high. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has recognised the programme's effectiveness--with its poverty focus and growing emphasis on encouraging the private sector--but, as I have said, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the PES. Let us wait and see.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, whatever the outcome of the PES, a cut in the total budget would probably mean a cut three times as great in the bilateral budget for this country's specific commitments? If there is any cut at all, the projects that will be most at risk are those to which the country is most committed.

Mr. Hanley: I do not accept that we are "most committed" to any specific part of the aid programme; it is all extremely important to us. I accept, however, that if there is a cut in the aid budget it will have a gearing effect on our bilateral aid, because of the proportion of bilateral to multilateral aid and the changeover that is likely to occur over the next three years. I can only repeat what I said before: our £2.2 billion programme is extremely effective, and I know that many people rely on us.

Sir John Stanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change to which he has just referred--the decline of

Column 16

the share of our bilateral aid programme, and the increasing share going to the European Union following decisions at the Edinburgh summit--is a matter of considerable concern? At the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will my right hon. Friend renegotiate those arrangements, and try to claw back to our national control a greater element of our available aid expenditure?

Mr. Hanley: Multilateral aid is currently about 50 per cent. of the total aid budget, and that reflects Britain's worldwide responsibilities. We plan to retain a substantial and effective bilateral programme, but our multilateral commitments are great because of our worldwide links and interests. We are working hard to ensure that multilateral aid, particularly that distributed through the European Community, meets the highest quality standards.

Miss Lestor: Is the Minister aware of the dismay that has been felt throughout southern Africa at the Government's refusal at last month's round table conference in Brussels to pledge any new money to help to consolidate the peace process in Angola, in response to calls for investment in vital rehabilitation programmes? That was prejudging the cuts. Is the Minister aware that that refusal is viewed as a lack of political commitment to the peace process in Angola, the success of which is essential not only for war-torn Angola but for the stability of southern Africa as a whole? Will he reconsider the matter without waiting for the Budget announcement?

Mr. Hanley: As the hon. Lady knows, 40 per cent. of our bilateral aid in 1993-94--that is more than £363 million--went to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We also make a substantial contribution through multilateral aid. The European Community's aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa for 1995 is equivalent to £7.6 billion, and the United Kingdom's share is £1.25 billion. As to Angola specifically, I shall pass the hon. Lady's comments on to my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister responsible.

Ghana

32. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what levels of assistance are being provided to Ghana. [37865]

Mr. Hanley: In addition to Ghana's share of our multilateral aid contributions--which are approximately £16.5 million--we have a substantial bilateral aid programme in Ghana; that will mean disbursements of some £17 million this financial year.

Mr. Robinson: Sponsored by the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I took part in a good governance seminar at the beginning of the summer recess. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government are doing to support countries such as Ghana, which are doing so much to restore democracy and good governance to their political systems?

Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We contributed £1 million to the cost of the 1991 elections in Ghana and we have given £400,000 for equipment and voter registration forms in next year's

Column 17

elections. Other measures to help to establish the new democracy have included the funding of links between our respective Parliaments.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that one of the multilateral organisations that is giving tremendous help to Ghana is the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation? Therefore, the Prime Minister's speech attacking UN agencies delivered at the UN general conference last month-- which his media spinners said was directed at the FAO--was received with great distress. The FAO works with the grain of the market and it is operating very effectively around the world to support market-driven agricultural reform. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain continues to support the FAO?

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that all money spent by the United Nations must be spent efficiently and effectively. I agree with that entirely.

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I stress to my right hon. Friend the importance of the democracy in Ghana, which is something of a flagship in west Africa? Furthermore, I urge him to recognise the important fact that the majority of Ghanaians are English speakers, and we therefore owe them particular support.

Mr. Hanley: I agree with my right hon. Friend: Ghana is one of our best African friends, and therefore it is quite natural that it should be one of Africa's main recipients of United Kingdom aid. It has received more than £160 million in the past five years. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), I referred to the aid that we are giving, and have given, to Ghana. I think that that answer confirms my right hon. Friend's comments also.

Column 18

Commodity Prices

33. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to increase the real prices of commodities from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. [37867]

Mr. Hanley: Experience has shown that attempts to ignore market forces and increase commodity prices artificially are doomed to failure. Instead, Britain has been helping African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to increase their overall export earnings by advocating trade liberalisation and providing aid to encourage export diversification.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that his reply will be disappointing to those who are suffering the effects of structural adjustment programmes? They have been forced to liberalise their economies to export more goods for less profit and often lower local domestic production and consumption. Does he recognise that the way out of poverty for many people in the world is for farmers to be paid decently and properly for their products without the profits being creamed off by banks and manufacturing organisations in the west?

Mr. Hanley: As I said, experience has shown that attempts to ignore market forces usually fail. International commodity agreements have failed to achieve real price rises over a sustained period. Some attempts have been costly failures. The International Tin Council left debts of £183 million and when the international coffee agreement collapsed, the consequent sharp decline in prices had an adverse effect on producing countries. Therefore, intervention in commodity prices has not proved effective in reducing poverty.

Column 17

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page