| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Genetically Modified Crops
8. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What responsibilities in respect of genetically modified crops will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. [84134]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Genetically modified crops are a devolved matter, so the Scottish Parliament will have competence to legislate in that area, within the parameters laid down in European Union legislation.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to invoke article 16 of the 1990 EU directive 90/220 and ban the growing of Novartis maize, which the Minister will know has been banned in Austria and Luxembourg? If he cannot answer now, will he write to me? Will the Scottish Parliament be
able to stand up for the consumer, the farmer and the environmentalist in a way that the Minister for the Cabinet Office conspicuously failed to do last week?
Mr. Macdonald: I do not know about the specific crop that the hon. Gentleman mentioned or the situation in Austria or Luxembourg but a general moratorium on genetically modified crops is not legal under EU law, as I am sure that he realises. The important thing is to conduct trials responsibly. That is why the Government have a number of agencies at our disposal to provide advice, including the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. Last Friday, two new commissions were set up: the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. The important thing is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can get advice from those commissions operating on a UK-wide basis. That is what we intend.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): Apart from genetically modified crops, which issues likely to excite political interest are to be left to the Scottish Office and not covered by another United Kingdom Minister?
Mr. Macdonald: I think that the hon. Gentleman is repeating earlier questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the answer to all those questions; he operates--indeed the Scottish Office operates--both as a representative of the Scottish people within the British Cabinet and as a representative of the British Cabinet in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked--
Immigration Adjudicators
29. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): Pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 133, on immigration adjudicators, by what percentage the number of outstanding immigration appeals has been reduced; and what training has been undertaken by immigration adjudicators. [84157]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): Between the end of December and the end of April 1999, the total number of outstanding appeals to adjudicators fell by 54 per cent. Any case can now be heard within four weeks of receipt. There is an on-going training programme for new adjudicators and three dedicated training days have been held this year on recent developments in immigration law.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply--and may I be the first to congratulate him on his new responsibilities? As his answer reveals, there is some spare capacity caused by relatively slow processing of domestic immigration cases and statements by the Home Office. As he has shown in the past--for example, in the Adjournment debate that he secured in January this year--there is concern about the operation of entry clearance overseas. Would it be possible for him to take steps to ensure that a larger proportion than the current
17 per cent. of work done by adjudicators relates to people appealing against the decisions of entry clearance officers overseas? In my constituency, there are people who have waited for more than six months merely to have an interview. To have to wait longer thereafter for an appeal is unfair. My hon. Friend is faced with a great opportunity to speed up the process radically. Will he take it?
Mr. Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. May I take the opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated and distinguished way in which my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, held this post? I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in his new career.
It did not take my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) long to remind me of what I said in January. The reduction in the number of outstanding cases has been remarkable. As I have been in the job for only seven days, I cannot take credit for that extraordinary achievement. My hon. Friend is aware that the issue of entry clearance officers and the way in which explanatory statements are issued by the posts abroad are matters for the Foreign Office. She is also aware that there are plans to improve that service by initiating pilot schemes--possibly even ensuring that some of the interviews are recorded. As for the Lord Chancellor's Department, we shall work with the Foreign Office and the Home Office, which has responsibility for dealing with such matters in this country, to ensure that the system is the best for the people who have applied and who have appealed. We shall ensure that the system is efficient, fair and quick.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
I join the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in congratulating my constituency neighbour on his promotion to the Lord Chancellor's Department as its Parliamentary Secretary. I trust that he will enjoy working with the Lord Chancellor as much as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) so clearly did.
Will the Minister tell the House why he thinks that the former Minister's reply, set out as a written answer at column 133 of Hansard of 23 March, is a proper and connected answer to the question asked at that time by the hon. Member for Slough?
Mr. Vaz:
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind comments. Clearly, Market Harborough and Leicester, East will often be together in the Chamber during the months to come.
Of course the answer is connected. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked whether the number of delays had improved. It has improved; the number of cases has gone down. In the last year of the previous Government, there were 34,000 outstanding appeals. Today, there are 7,113 outstanding appeals. That is a dramatic reduction. That is because the system works and because of the need to ensure that those cases are dealt with as quickly and as speedily as possible.
30. Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase):
What plans he has to review the retirement age for magistrates. [84158]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz):
The Lord Chancellor has no plans to review the retirement age for magistrates, which is 70 years of age, and broadly the same as for all holders of judicial office. The Lord Chancellor recognises the important contribution that older people can make and, for that reason, increased the upper age limit for appointment to 65 in 1997.
Dr. Tony Wright:
I add my voice to the general congratulations offered to my hon. Friend.
I applaud the Lord Chancellor for moving the appointment age of magistrates from 55 to 65 two years ago, but does he not now need to take the next logical step and shift the retirement age? It surely makes no sense to recruit good, active people in their sixties if they are then forced to retire from the bench at 70. Having done one good thing, it is now time to do another.
Mr. Vaz:
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Lord Chancellor's decision. As he knows, the retirement age of 70 for lay magistrates was approved by Parliament in 1968. The Lord Chancellor values the contribution that older people have made to the bench, but it is right that the bench should be as representative as possible of society as a whole. That is why the Lord Chancellor feels that the retirement age of 70 is appropriate, and it means that many people serve beyond the normal retirement age. A recent campaign to recruit more magistrates resulted in 14,000 inquiries. I think the whole House wants to see a bench that is truly representative of society. That is why we believe it is appropriate to keep the retirement age at 70.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
Does the Minister acknowledge that 30 years is a long time in politics and that it is not too soon to review the retirement age as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) suggests? Many people over the age of 70 can continue to give good judicial service. They should leave the bench not because of their age but because they wish to do so or because of their evident unsuitability.
Mr. Vaz:
The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is important to have an age limit, otherwise there is a risk that people will go on for ever--and that would not be appropriate. It is important to attract more young people into the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor normally appoints people aged over 27 and the age, ethnic and gender profiles have changed enormously in the past two years. I take the right hon. Gentlemen's point--it is a serious one--but I am sure he will agree that it is important that the bench should represent and reflect society.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |