| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what proportion of our bilateral and EU aid to the poorest countries of the world goes to the poorest people, that is, the social sector, to give them the help that they really need so that they can stand on their own feet? I am referring to health and education. Has that aid gone up or gone down in real terms rather than simply as a proportion of our diminishing bilateral aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, approximately 70 per cent. of British bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries. We have increased the amount spent on primary education, health and family planning. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact percentages at the Dispatch Box, but I will drop him a line on the subject. Within the particular country we seek to choose our projects with non-governmental organisations to target those who can benefit most. Undoubtedly, they will be the poorest. However, it is a very complicated matrix and generalised answers do not always provide the detail of how much is being done in primary education and particularly in family planning and primary health care--which are the essentials--together with water conservation and simple sanitation systems. We intend to continue to concentrate on those areas and persuade our colleagues in other member states to do likewise.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the Minister say more about the co-ordination of policy within the European Union? There are very disturbing reports that the common fisheries policy is undermining fishing communities in third world countries which are utterly
dependent on fishing for their livelihood. Does the Minister agree it is absolutely mad that British taxpayers should pay money through the aid programme to support people who are victims of the common agricultural policy by the dumping of food on the third world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as the common fisheries policy is concerned, there is an EC third country fisheries agreement. Those policies should always be consistent with the Community's wider policies towards developing countries. As the noble Lord will know, a committee of this House is now studying EC third country fisheries agreements and will publish a report shortly. We look forward to that report. We believe it will help us make the case that we have already been making in the Commission.
We asked the Commission for a proposal for the reform of the beef regime, and indeed the dairy regime, this year. We await that proposal. We also feel it absolutely crucial to stop the nonsense of subsidised exports of beef to southern Africa which impede local beef production and exports, particularly in Namibia. All those matters are being managed. However, it is quite a battle to make the whole business coherent. That is why I made the comment about holding a discussion on coherence at the informal Development Council at the beginning of next month.
EU Law: Budget Proposal
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the European Commission's proposal to spend approximately £4 million to help lawyers and judges improve their knowledge of European Union law was featured in the Commission's budget for 1997 and, if so, under what title and chapter; and whether the proposal was made at the specific request of the Council of Ministers or any individual member state.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proposal was included in the 1997 European Communities draft budget. The title was, B5-3 Internal Market, and the chapter heading was B5-30 Measures concerning the internal market. Under the proposal, 5.6 million ecu, equivalent to £4.2 million, would be provided during 1997-99, of which 1.6 million ecu or £1.2 million would fall due in 1997. This is a Commission initiative. It was not the result of a request by the Council of Ministers or by the United Kingdom, and the Government are not aware of any request from individual member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I express my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on having rejected the Commission's proposal? However, are the Government aware that there is no such thing as European common law or European statute law? The treaty is all that there is. All that lawyers are invited to do is distinguish the significance that the European Court of Justice is likely to place on the use of the
preamble to the treaty, and the preamble and recitals of each regulation directive that comes forward. In most cases those exceed the text of the so-called law itself.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all Community legislation might be regarded as statutory in the sense that it is made by organs of the Community. In so far as it has effect in this country, it is by virtue of the European Communities Act and Acts amending the same. So far as the construction of European legislation is concerned, the preamble, where there is one, may be of consequence along with the other parts of the instrument in question. The European Court of Justice, which is not exceptional, seeks to construe the instrument as a whole, including its full text and preamble.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the complexity of European law is due mainly to the obligation on the part of member states to harmonise their law under the Treaty of Rome, as amended; and that with 15 nations with 11 different languages and a number of different legal systems, that process has become very nearly impossible? Is my noble and learned friend further aware that Herr Rolf Wagenbaur, the eminent German lawyer who was largely responsible for advising the Commission on this matter until his retirement 18 months ago, advised that there should be fewer European laws, and that they should be better?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to dissent from the very succinct advice that my noble friend quoted at the end of his question. The first consideration relates to the need for a law. Where it is shown to be necessary, it should be as clear and succinct as possible. Where there is complexity, we should aim at simplification; however, where the existing law is complex it has to some extent to do with the nature of the problems being addressed by the law. Some areas of our own law might, for example, be regarded as somewhat complex.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does this attempt to train lawyers also apply to other professions that will work across the boundaries; or is it the case that the well-known moderation demonstrated by lawyers in relation to their charges will not be able to stand the cost of their training themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the short answer (though I am tempted to give the longer one) may be the wiser. This particular initiative deals only with lawyers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I accept the interpretation given of the whole question by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. However, will he accept that the complexities to which he refers are in part due to the powers given to the Commission to be the sole interpreters, short of the court itself, of the provisions of the treaty? Does he further accept that the
Commission's advice on various sections is very often contradictory and sometimes, I regret to say, unintelligible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps the more unintelligible the interpretation, the less harm it can do. I agree that these matters are difficult. Anything that can properly advance understanding, skill and simplicity is to be supported. On the other hand, for reasons set out in the memorandum on this proposal, the Government took the view that this is not a particularly wise way to spend this sort of money.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether the Government are sympathetic to the view that those in initial training in the legal profession face very difficult financial circumstances, and that were money to be spent, it would be better spent at that stage to enable the rising generation of lawyers to be fully conversant with European laws?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the subject matter of European law is included in syllabuses for those seeking to enter the legal profession. Sustaining those aspects of the syllabus costs money. It is desirable that on entry to the profession those who seek to qualify should have an understanding of European law.
Northumbrian Water: Fluoridation Decision
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the board of directors of Northumbrian Water is entitled to refuse to accede to the request from eight health authorities to improve the dental health of their clients by extending fluoridisation of their water supplies to some 1.7 million residents in the north east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the interpretation of Northumbrian Water's powers and responsibilities under the Water Industry Act 1991 is a question for the water undertakers initially, but ultimately for the courts.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Do the Government agree that failing to fluoridate water supplies is contrary to the interests of public health? Does the Minister further agree that legislation needs amending in order to make fluoridation mandatory once health authorities have decided that the move would have significant public health benefits to the population and particularly to children?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page