| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought it was clear from the first Answer that I gave that the majority of claims are for less than £10 and a third of them for less than £7. Those members were receiving £119 as a daily fee and that has now gone up to £129. It does not seem to me that there is any significant loss to anyone who participates and indeed there will be some who will gain from it. I am bound to say that I do not consider that this is a matter of any great substance. Indeed, as the letter went out to tribunal members, the present arrangements were being changed, as was simply spelt out, because they were regarded as being unnecessarily cumbersome. I should have thought that the detail that I gave in the Answer would reveal that that was a perfectly sensible decision at which to arrive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member who sits on a tribunal panel. Is it not a fact that that letter gave the news that the increase would be £10 on the daily rate? Did it not also give the reason that it was to save a very large amount of money in administrative costs? There were costs in
checking those very small amounts--certainly in London it might cost £1.50 for transport each way and there was a luncheon allowance of £4.25 only if one sat for the whole day. As I understand the letter of explanation, it was to save those very heavy administrative costs.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed, I thought that was adequately encompassed in the description of "unnecessarily cumbersome". I should have thought it acceptable that if there is an increase of £10 in the daily fee and the majority of claims are for less than that sum, it is a matter of no great substance. It might have been a matter of greater substance if there were members who had to participate in the tribunal away from their normal office or hearing centre and they were caught in that. There might then be some point of concern. But, as the letter to which my noble friend referred says, if they go to an unusual place to sit, they will of course be paid expenses if they are required to sit in that alternative office.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to say whether the presidents of the industrial tribunals--that is the president of the tribunal in Scotland and the one for Wales--were consulted and whether any arrangement was made to consult the regional chairmen who are responsible for administering the tribunals? Was any consultation along those lines conducted before the changes were made?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure whether those particular persons were consulted. But, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, there is no representative organisation for the 2,500 or so members. Certainly the chairmen themselves are not included within the arrangement, for the very good reason that it will avoid any potential conflict of interests. Because they are legally qualified in the areas in which they practise, they are frequently required to participate in these tribunals well away from the areas in which they work. For that reason, they are not included within the arrangement.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the whole House appreciates the fact that administrative savings may be made by making a single lump sum payment. But we are concerned that parties, witnesses and members of industrial tribunals who incur exceptional significant travelling expenses will not be able to claim them. Can the Minister say whether it will be possible, in exceptional circumstances, for legitimate high travelling expenses to be reimbursed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, sometimes I get the mood of the House wrong, but I do not get the impression today that it is particularly concerned about this matter. As I indicated, exceptional circumstances are provided for. If a member is required to go away from the location at which the tribunal usually sits, travel expenses would be paid additionally.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the fact that this House is not concerned is what
is wrong with this House? This House should be concerned. This House does not know, on the basis of the Minister's statement, whether all the 50 per cent. or so of people who do not need the money are employer representatives and it does not seem to care. Is that not disgraceful?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords.
Parkhurst Prison: Suspension of Governor
2.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
-
Whether they remain of the opinion that the Home Secretary was correct in telling the House of Commons on 19th October 1995 that "there was no question of overruling the director-general" of the Prison Service on the suspension of the governor of Parkhurst Prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not there a conflict of evidence, if the Government are so satisfied, between the Answer we have just been given and the evidence given by Mr. Derek Lewis in his book, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar? It reported the Permanent Secretary as saying that, if he did not suspend Marriott--the governor of Parkhurst--he would go to the House that afternoon and announce that he had been sacked.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am familiar with the book; it is misleading and inaccurate. The Home Secretary was not only anxious about that affair, he also needed to be consulted and had a right to know. There was grave concern about the escapes from Parkhurst. They worried the Home Secretary, as they should have done. He was entitled to be consulted and was consulted. The book is misleading and inaccurate.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, given the status of the Prison Service Agency, could the Home Secretary have overruled the director of the Prison Service on this matter?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, he could not.
European Union Development Council
2.52 p.m.
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
-
What was the outcome of the recent informal European Union Development Council meeting and what will be its implications for the aid and development policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure she will agree that it is important that we know what we will inherit on the European front when we take office in May.
Did the meeting make progress on better arrangements for co-ordination in responding decisively and effectively to acute humanitarian challenges, like that in Albania, as regards both short and long-term needs? What was agreed on more timely action to defuse developing crises in time and prevent human catastrophes on the scale of Albania? In relation to food security, what progress was made in dealing with the appalling way in which the common agricultural policy, with its consequential food dumping on third world countries, actively undermines the development priorities both of the Union and of individual member countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a whole list of questions. The evening discussion on humanitarian issues was enlightened by the presence of the EU envoy, Aldo Ayello, and the UN and OAU envoy, Mr. Mohamed Sahnoun, when we discussed in detail the questions worrying all of us on eastern Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi and the general Great Lakes problem. We also discussed Liberia and Sierra Leone, Angola, Afghanistan and Bosnia. A much greater understanding was achieved in that meeting.
In addition to those discussions, we had a useful discussion on food security, as I mentioned. Everyone agreed with the proposals that I have now put through twice on coherence, so that the decisions that are made in one committee of the European Union--such as that on export refunds for beef destined for southern Africa--should not be upset by decisions in another. The discussions on food security will need to be taken forward in the working groups of officials and will come to a formal council when decisions can be adopted. The general discussion was in a firm sense "forward" and it will be something to which I shall look forward to taking forward after the general election.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Lome IV convention was discussed at the meeting? If so, was any agreement for refinancing
reached on that? Can she say also whether the issue of negotiating the budget which is to take place in 1999 was discussed?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |