Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Merchant Shipping Regulations

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I regret the delay in replying substantively to the noble Lord's Question. My department is reviewing the position of the documents (which are voluminous) and consulting other interested departments. I will write to the noble Lord as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

Questions for Written Answer

Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The Government take very seriously this responsibility to ensure that noble Lords who table parliamentary Questions (PQs) receive considered and accurate Answers within the agreed time limit of 14 days, and they endeavour to meet that target where possible.

However, some PQs, particularly those that raise complex issues that require input from two or more government departments, or that require the collation of information from a number of sources, can take longer. Of the three Questions you refer to, two, HL277 and HL255, fell into this category. An administrative mix-up delayed the answering of the other, HL398.

I am pleased to say that full Answers have now been provided to all three.

17 Feb 2000 : Column WA172

Civil Service and Public Sector Employee Numbers

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What is the number of home civil and public servants; and what is the cost to the United Kingdom of preparing and implementing European Union legislation including the costs of setting up enforcement agencies, whether self-financing or fully or partly financed by the public purse.[HL877]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: At 1 April 1999 481,000 permanent staff were employed in the UK Civil Service (460,000 on a full-time equivalent basis). The latest figure available for the whole of the UK public sector is for 1998 and shows that 5,002,000 people were employed (4,110,000 on a full-time equivalent basis). Of these, 484,000 were permanent civil servants (463,000 on a full-time equivalent basis).

Information on the cost to the UK of preparing and implementing EU legislation is not held centrally.

Strategic Communications Unit

The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Why there has been a projected 35 per cent. increase in the running costs of the Strategic Communications Unit from 1998-99 to 1999-2000; and what proportion of the additional cost can be attributed to the input to the Unit by special advisers.[HL896]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The cost of the Strategic Communications Unit has risen for various reasons, including the improvements to the No 10 website. The number and role of special advisers in the unit remains unchanged.

Special Advisers

The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What measures are in place to ensure that special advisers comply fully with the terms of the Civil Service code, their model contracts and the guidance on the work of the Government Information and Communication Service.[HL922]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The responsibility for ensuring that civil servants--including special advisers--comply with the terms and conditions of their employment rests with their employing department.

The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether special advisers are subject to the terms of paragraph 27 of the ministerial code; and, if so,

17 Feb 2000 : Column WA173

    whether they are satisfied that special advisers are complying adequately with it.[HL924]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. The ministerial code is a code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers. Decisions on the timing and content of announcements of government policy are taken by Ministers, not special advisers.

The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 8 February (WA 77) that "The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million", whether that figure includes the cost of special advisers within 10 Downing Street; and, if so, what proportion is attributable to the cost of special advisers; and[HL998]

    Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 8 February (WA 77) that "The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million", to what period the phrase "to date" refers.[HL999]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The cost of £3.9 million, of which £1.2 million is the cost of special advisers, covers the period 1 April to 31 December 1999.

Conservative Party Tax Policy

Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government.

    On what basis the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 February at Question Time in the House of Commons claimed that Lord Lamont of Lerwick had described the Conservative Party tax guarantee as "irresponsible".[HL909]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to pages 184-185, in the section entitled "Disagreements with the PM on tax", of his own book In Office:

"At a morning press conference . . . I was sitting next to John Major and whispered to him . . . that we should not make any commitment because the tax burden was difficult to control. Nonetheless Major insisted on saying that in the course of the next Parliament the tax burden would be reduced. That would have required a drastic reduction in the size and role of the state. I was somewhat uneasy about this promise, particularly given John Major's views on public spending.

At another press conference John was asked about the 20 pence tax band in the Budget, and he promised that the Government would expand the band of income to which this applied year by year. This commitment to cut taxes every year was certainly something that no party in power could responsibly promise. He and I had in fact discussed this very point, and I had emphasised that no government could possibly commit to cutting taxes every year. I was even more surprised that someone who had been opposed

17 Feb 2000 : Column WA174

to the principle of tax cuts was now prepared to promise them every year."

Spoliation Advisory Panel

Lord Sewel asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they will publish proposals for the establishment of a panel to advise on cases of works of art which may have been looted during the Nazi World War II era. [HL1109]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very pleased to be able to announce that the right honourable Sir David Hirst has agreed to chair a Spoliation Advisory Panel to consider and advise on claims from anyone who lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era where such an object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit.

The draft terms of reference for the Panel are set out below and I am now inviting interested organisations and individuals to let me have their views before these are finalised. SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL DRAFT CONSTITUTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE Members of the Panel

1. The members of the Spoliation Advisory Panel ("the Panel") will be appointed by the Secretary of State on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Secretary of State shall appoint one member as Chairman of the Panel. Resources for the Panel

2. The Secretary of State will make available such resources as he considers necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its functions, including administrative support provided by a Secretriat ("the Secretariat"). Functions of the Panel

3. The task of the Panel is to consider claims from anyone (or from any one or more of their heirs), who lost possession of a cultural object ("the object") during the Nazi era, where such object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit ("the institution"). The Panel shall advise the claimant and the institution on what would be appropriate action to take in response to such a claim. The Panel shall also be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.

4. In an appropriate case the Panel may also advise the Secretary of State.


    (a) on what action should be taken in relation to general issues raised by the claim, and/or


    (b) where it considers that the circumstances of the particular claim warrant it, on what action should be taken in relation to that claim.

17 Feb 2000 : Column WA175

    Performance of the Panel's functions

5. In performing the functions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Panel's paramount purpose shall be to achieve a solution which is fair and just both to the claimant and to the institution.

6. For this purpose the Panel shall:


    (a) make such factual and legal inquiries, (including the seeking of advice about legal matters, about cultural objects and about valuation of such objects) as the Panel consider appropriate to assess each claim as comprehensively as possible;


    (b) assess all information and material submitted by or on behalf of the claimant and the institution or any other person, or otherwise provided or known to the Panel;


    (c) examine and determine the circumstances in which the claimant was deprived of the object, whether by theft, forced sale, sale at an undervalue, or otherwise;


    (d) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the claimant's original title to the object, bearing in mind the difficulties of providing such title after the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the duration of the period which has elapsed since the claimant lost possession of the object;


    (e) give due weight to the moral strength of the claimant's case;


    (f) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the institution's title to the object;


    (g) consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution taking into account in particular the circumstances of its acquisition of

17 Feb 2000 : Column WA176

    the object, and its knowledge at that juncture of the object's provenance;


    (h) take account of any relevant statutory provisions, including stipulations as to the institution's objectives, and any restrictions on its power of disposal;


    (i) take account of the terms of any trust instrument regulating the powers and duties of the trustees of the institution, and give appropriate weight to their fiduciary duties;


    (j) where appropriate, assess the current market value of the object, and


    (k) formulate and submit to the claimant, the institution and the Secretary of State, its advice in a written report, giving reasons.

Scope of Advice

7. If the Panel upholds the claim in principle, it may recommend either:


    (a) the return of the object to the claimant, or


    (b) the payment of compensation to the claimant, the amount being in the discretion of the Panel having regard to all relevant circumstances, and not tied to the current market value, or


    (c) an ex gratia payment to the claimant, or


    (d) the display alongside the object of an account of its history and provenance during and since the Nazi era, with special reference to the claimant's interest therein; and


    (e) that negotiations should be conducted with the successful claimant in order to implement such a recommendation as expeditiously as possible.

8. Where the Panel considers it appropriate to advise the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(a), it may make such recommendations in relation to general issues raised by the claim as it considers fit.



   Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page