| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I declare an interest as one who had the honour of serving in the Brigade of Gurkhas. I should like to press the Minister on the point. We owe an extraordinary debt of obligation to the men who have served in the brigade over the years which has by no means been discharged by the rather limited pay and pensions that we have paid them. I ask the Minister to treat this not as an ordinary work permit issue, but as a debt of obligation for the country as a whole.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am trying to give a targeted answer to the targeted Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. The answer is in no way attempting to undermine or diminish the debt that we owe the Gurkhas. However, as the noble Lord will know better than I, the whole system is based on a tripartite agreement between the Nepalese Government, the Indian Government and the British Government. The system has worked extremely successfully over the years. From my own constituency experience of knowing people who served with the
Gurkhas, I understand the arguments on pay and pensions, but I shall not deal with the details of those issues now. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the system. As I said, the system is bound by a tripartite agreement between the three governments.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, even with that agreement, will the Minister confirm that—given the enormous service that they have performed for this country, to which he has rightly paid tribute—the Gurkhas will receive at least equal if not favourable treatment in relation to others entering the country or seeking permits to work here?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is absolutely the case. They will be treated in exactly the same way as other applicants. Depending on the nature of the work, some applicants will have better skills and qualifications than others. In her example, the noble Baroness pointed to two aspects in which there is a clear advantage to a particular employer. We have a very successful operation. I have been amazed at the relevant figures. We take on some 220 Gurkhas a year and there are some 20,000 applications each year for those places. They are much sought after, for reasons that we all understand.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the Fijians that we employ in the Army. About two years ago, we employed about 316 Fijians; maybe the figure is higher by now. When they are decommissioned, will they be able to take up normal employment in this country or will they have to obtain work permits?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, all credit to the noble Lord; I have to say that I have not got a clue. I do not know the basis on which those Fijians are employed in the Army. As of about now, I am probably the expert on Gurkhas—just for a few minutes! I suspect that the arrangements for the Fijians will more or less mirror those for the Gurkhas. They will probably have to be discharged in Fiji, not in this country, and will be able to apply, like other people. But I do not know. Obviously, I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
Government Bills: Human Rights Declaration
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, Ministers could make available the substance of the reasoning on which they base their statement that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord was unaware when he tabled his Question that the Government have agreed that Explanatory Notes for all government Bills first introduced after 1st January 2002 will draw attention to the main convention issues that each Bill raises. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor announced that development in his reply to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on 18th December 2001. It can be found in the Official Report, at col. WA 43. The relevant guidance for those preparing government Bills has been amended accordingly. This is a positive development, which should further focus ministerial attention and enhance our debates on these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. In our other embodiment, it is somewhat akin to a very satisfactory compromise statement made in open court. I am grateful to her. Does she agree that this framework of guidance, which we saw on 26th December and which was devised by her department, could or should disclose adequate reasoning in support of the certificate and could and should dispose of the situation that arose in relation to the representation of the people legislation at all three stages? There was a well-founded challenge to the rectitude of the certification but the Minister gave no answer at all. As a result, corrective measures have now to be taken, as explained in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, of 10th January.
May I ask one question? Can we have in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if possible, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, draft Explanatory Notes so that we may give consideration to them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is a very helpful development. As many noble Lords know, that development was in response to suggestions made to the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Jack Straw, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lester, in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We thank them for that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that Explanatory Notes are made available as soon as they are published. I cannot say that all Explanatory Notes will be available 21 days before Second Reading; they would or should normally be available the day after the Bill is first introduced and at least 14 days before Second Reading. We will use our best endeavours to produce them as quickly as possible but until a Bill is published it would be impossible to explain definitively the basis upon which that certificate would be granted. However, we shall do our very best.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although it is obviously helpful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to identify in the Explanatory Notes what the
Government think the issues are, would it not be much more helpful if the Government explained why, at the end of the day, their advisers found that there was no incompatibility?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord refers to the disclosure of the legal advice on which a Minister may base his decision. Noble Lords will know that successive governments have made it clear that it would be inappropriate to disclose such legal advice. This Government do not intend to depart from that practice, for good reasons with which the noble Lord will be more than familiar. This helpful change will help us with scrutiny and is much to be applauded. We think that this is as far as we need to go at this stage, although I reassure the noble Lord that we shall continue to scrutinise the issues to see how we can best assist.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches welcome the change to which she referred? It should enable this place to do its job of legislative scrutiny more effectively. However, pursuing that logic a little further, is it not a cause for regret that the new administrative procedure was not applied to the Animal Health Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about the Animal Health Bill. It is a matter of great celebration, as he rightly said, that this practice will be adhered to in future. We all rightly celebrate that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I briefly seek clarification. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that I am not seeking disclosure of legal advice for which public immunity from disclosure is properly available? I ask only for adequate disclosure of the substance of the reasoning.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I fully understand that that is what the noble Lord seeks. The current structure will enable the essence to be understood and proper debates to be had. The new method will be effective. Of course, if there are signs that it is insufficiently effective, we remain open to re-examining it.
Home Care Charges: Statutory Guidance
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What responses they have received to their statutory guidance to councils regarding charges for home care published in November 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the department has received 13 responses. Most of them posed detailed questions on practical aspects of the guidance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present system of care charging for disabled people is absolutely chaotic? Some councils provide the services free but others charge up to £200 for exactly the same service. Can my noble friend tell us about the national guidance? It is admirable so far as it goes, but why should councils be allowed to evade some parts of it until 2003? What are the Government's plans for monitoring the rogue councils that neglect and ignore the guidance? What sanctions are being prepared with which to hit them when they are found to be neglecting charges?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page