Written Answers
Tuesday, 11th March 1997.
Landmines: Vienna Conference
asked Her Majesty's Government:What part they played in the February conference in Vienna attended by more than 100 government experts, on a world-wide ban on landmines as a follow-up to the Ottawa Process started in October 1996.
We were represented at the conference by officials from the FCO and the MoD. They played an active part in the proceedings.
Red Cross: Support
asked Her Majesty's Government:What recent assistance has been provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross to support is humanitarian work.
The Minister for Overseas Development recently announced a new contribution of £5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross. This contribution will support programmes which include protection and assistance for victims of conflicts, the dissemination of the international humanitarian law, and the provision of humanitarian relief and medical assistance to conflict affected groups.
Unhcr: Support
asked Her Majesty's Government:What assistance they gave to the general programmes budget of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees in 1996.
The Minister for Overseas Development has approved a grant of £5 million for UNHCR's General Programmes budget for 1997. The UK is one of the foremost national donors of UNHCR; last calendar year our contributions, both indirect payments and assistance in kind, exceeded £30 million.
Fisheries Research Services
of Lour asked Her Majesty's Government:When the Fisheries Research Services Agency will be established and when its framework document will be published.
Fisheries Research Services will come into existence as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1997. Its framework document has been published today and a copy has been placed in the Library.
Vat And Repairs To Listed Buildings
asked Her Majesty's Government:How the reply of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (H.L. Deb., 11 February,
WA 15) to the effect that the "Government … has no plans to change the current position whereby repairs to listed buildings are liable to VAT at the standard rate" accords with the statement of the Minister of State at the Department of National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat) on 12 December 1996 to the effect that "the VAT directive that requires repairs to be taxed at the full 17.5 per cent. is about to be reviewed"; and
Whether, if the VAT directive that requires repairs to be taxed at the full 17.5 per cent. is changed after review, they intend to make consequential changes in United Kingdom law.
It is the responsibility of the European Commission to review every two years, starting in 1994, the part of the VAT Sixth Directive that lists the supplies of goods and services to which a reduced rate may be applied. In principle the Commission should have undertaken a review before the end of 1996, and it was this expectation that formed the basis of Mr. Sproat's statement last December. In practice, because the Commission has committed its resources to other work and there is little pressure from member states for changes, the Commission has not undertaken such a review.The list of goods and services in the Sixth VAT Directive to which a reduced rate may be applied already includes all building work in connection with housing. However, the Government have no plans to introduce any further reduced VAT rates other than the unique 8 per cent. for domestic fuel and power.
Child Welfare
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their response to (i) the Council of Europe's document 1993.R(91) and its 1994 report on street children in so far as these refer to the United Kingdom; and (ii) the comments on the United Kingdom in the report of the United Nations Children's Committee, published in January 1995.
We have studied the Council of Europe's reports and considered the recommendations carefully. Through the Children Act 1989, we have placed duties and responsibilities on local authorities to provide services for children in need and their families. Many, if not all, of these children would be assessed as children in need. Where there is no person with parental responsibility for the child under 18 and where the child's welfare would otherwise be seriously prejudiced, the local authority must provide accommodation for that child. The Act also enabled the setting up of refuges to provide a safe environment when children had run away and where their difficulties could be addressed.The Government have read the report and noted the comments of the United Nation Committee on the Rights of the Child. There is no obligation under the UN Convention for the United Kingdom Government to respond to the committee's observations—which praised much of what is being done for UK children—or to implement any of its recommendations. We do take our international obligations seriously and believe we comply with them—especially in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Nhs: Payment Of Creditors
asked Her Majesty's Government:What action they are taking to ensure the prompt payment of creditors by National Health Service bodies and what level of debt of more than 30 days' standing they expect to be carried forward by the National Health Service after 31 March 1997.
All National Health Service bodies are required to pay their external suppliers within 30 days of receipt of goods or a valid invoice. The payment performance of NHS trusts is collected on a quarterly basis and trusts which are underperforming are monitored by the appropriate NHS Executive Regional Office.Levels of overdue debt are not collected centrally from NHS bodies.
Petrol Vapour Recovery
asked Her Majesty's Government:What progress has been made in response to the recommendation of the 1995 House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment to introduce petrol vapour recovery for vehicle refuelling ("Stage II").
In response to a recommendation from the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, we undertook to consider the case of implementation of the "Stage II" petrol vapour recovery system at service stations once the results of further research into its costs were available. Stage II is designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds. These can be harmful in their own right and also contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, which can have adverse effects on human health and on the environment.
Research has demonstrated that Stage II offers better value for money then alternative methods for reducing emissions arising from vehicle refuelling at petrol stations. Stage II also compares favourably with abatement techniques used in other industry sectors. The Government therefore intend to consult later this year on proposals for the introduction of Stage II controls at certain petrol stations.
In so doing, we shall be seeking to involve the petroleum industry and other interested parties as fully as possible. The final adoption of the proposals will be based on consideration of the overall costs and benefits. Our research has indicated that the cost per tonne of volatile organic compounds abated rises rapidly at smaller stations and this will obviously influence our proposals. We are particularly aware of the need to avoid imposing any unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens on small stations, especially those in rural areas, where availability of supply can be a problem.
Preliminary research undertaken for my department has indicated that evaporative emissions during vehicle refuelling may also contribute to ambient levels of benzene around some petrol stations which exceed the proposed national air quality standard. Over the coming year we shall be carrying out further research to evaluate the extent of this problem and to consider the potential abatement options.
Environment Council, 3 March
asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the Environment Council on 3 March 1997.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 3 March.The Council agreed Conclusions to establish the Community's negotiating position for the preparatory meetings for the Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan, in December of this year. They agreed that the EU should propose that developed countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2010. They identified current commitments from member states, including a commitment from the United Kingdom for a reduction of 10 per cent., that would enable EU countries as a whole to reduce their emissions by 10 per cent. by the year 2010. They also agreed to identify further policies and measures to enable EU countries to deliver an overall reduction of 15 per cent. by 2010, should developed countries agree to that target at the Kyoto Conference.The Council discussed the draft Council Resolution on the Implementation and Enforcement of Community Environmental law but agreed to defer a final decision until the views of the European Parliament become available; a common position was agreed on the funding of European Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) subject to a UK parliamentary scrutiny reserve.
In the Council discussion on the two directives on proposed fuel quality and car emission standards by 2000 (Auto-Oil Stage 1) we welcomed the progress being made on these important proposals and emphasised the need for agreement to be reached as soon as possible. We also supported the majority view that it was important for the Commission to bring forward by the end of 1998 their proposals for mandatory fuel and car emissions standards for 2005.
Over lunch the Council discussed the position of the negotiations on the proposed framework agreement on Leghold Traps. We reiterated our concerns that the existing proposals were inadequate and emphasised the need for a much stronger agreement. Further negotiations with the third countries are expected to begin shortly.
There was a presentation by the Commission on its recently adopted proposals for the reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds; the Dutch Presidency hope to secure political agreement on this at the June Environment Council. The Water Framework Directive was also presented. In the discussion on the use of Environmental Agreements, we welcomed the Commission's recent Communication and highlighted the importance of these measures as an alternative or complement to a regulatory approach.
The Council also adopted a Directive amending the Directive 85/337 on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This is to be implemented by March 1999 and the Government will be consulting on its implementation later this year.
My right honourable friend also took part in the Structured Dialogue meeting with Environment Ministers from the countries from Central and Eastern Europe, in which we had a useful exchange of views on climate change and energy efficiency issues.
Genetically Engineered Cotton: Patent
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their view of the United States patent originally taken out by the United States biotechnology firm Agracetus, which has recently been taken over by Monsanto, and which claims to cover all genetically engineered cotton.
In the UK, patents may be granted for inventions which meet the statutory requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. In addition the claims of the granted patent must be clear and supported by the description. The granting of patents in other countries is subject to similar conditions.The Government are aware that some commentators consider that the claims of the Agracetus patent are too broad to be valid. Since it was granted in the United States, the Government are not planning to take any action in relation to the patent itself. It is, however, open to anyone who feels that the patent should not have been granted to seek re-examining under US procedures. US patents do not have any effect in the United Kingdom.
Special Procedure Orders: Identity Of Petitioners
asked the Chairman of Committees:What steps are being taken to ensure that petitioners appearing before Joint Committees on Special Procedure Orders reveal their identities and business details; and whether inquiries will be instituted to uncover the persons and businesses of RBNBC and RBNB who appeared before the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley (Oakwell Regeneration Area) Compulsory Purchase Order.
The identity of most petitioners appearing before Joint Committees on Special Procedure Orders is apparent from the petitions which they have presented. The ultimate identity of a petitioner who is a company, if it is a matter of concern to the committee to which the petition is referred, is a matter for the committee itself to enquire into.RBNBC and RBNB are private unlimited companies and associated companies of FSK Nominees Limited, together with whom they lodged a petition against the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley (Oakwell Regeneration Area) Compulsory Purchase Order 1994. The Joint Committee which considered the order made clear its wish to know the identity of the owners of the companies, but, rather than disclose those identities, the petitioners withdrew their petition, as they were entitled to do.I have no authority to institute enquiries into the identities of the persons and businesses concerned. In its Special Report (HL Paper 50), the Joint Committee recommended that the Procedure Committees in both Houses examine the question whether a petitioner in parliamentary proceedings should, where it is a company, be able to conceal the identity of its beneficial owners. The Procedure Committee in another place is unable to do so, as its terms of reference relate only to public business. I shall see that the report is brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee of this House.
Legal Aid Payments To Lawyers
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 30 January 1995 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 100) whether information on which five barristers receive the largest total annual payments from criminal legal aid is now available and, if so, how much was paid in each case.
The five barristers who are recorded as receiving the highest total payments from Crown Court legal aid during 1995–96 were as follows:
| Barrister | Amount Paid (£ million)1 |
| Mr. R. Henriques QC | over 0.5 |
| Mr. R. Amlot QC | 0.45–0.499 |
| Mr. D. DeSilva QC | 0.4–0.449 |
| Mr. R. Tansey QC | 0.4–0.449 |
| Mr. J. Rees QC | 0.35–0.399 |
| 1 The figures quoted are the total amounts paid from legal aid in respect of cases closed in 1995–96. They do not include payments on account for cases still current. Therefore they are not to be taken as payments received in 1995–96. They could well reflect payments for several years' work and should not be seen as a measurement of annual income. They are inclusive of VAT and other disbursements necessarily incurred. | |
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 30 January 1995 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 100) whether information on which five solicitors' firms received the largest total annual payments from the Legal Aid Board is now available and, if so, how much was paid in each case.
The top five solicitors' firms recorded as receiving the highest total payments from the Legal Aid Board during 1995–96 were as follows:
| Firm | Amount Paid (£ million)1 |
| Brendan Fleming | over 2.60 |
| Irwin Mitchell | over 2.60 |
| The Smith Partnership | 2.50–2.59 |
| Nelsons | 2.40–2.49 |
| Pictons incorporating Smeathmans | 2.40–2.49 |
| 1 The figures quoted are the total amounts paid from legal aid in respect of cases closed in 1995–96. They do not include payments on account for cases still current. Therefore they are not to be taken as payments received in 1995–96. They could well reflect payments for several years' work and should not be seen as a measurement of annual income. They are inclusive of VAT and other disbursements necessarily incurred. | |
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 30 January 1995 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 100) how much public money has been spent on banisters' fees during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.
Information is not readily available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Legal aid payments for civil proceedings and criminal proceedings in the magistrates' courts totalling £140 million in 1994–95 and £159 million in 1995–96 were paid by the Legal Aid Board in respect of barristers' fees in England and Wales. For criminal proceedings in the higher courts a total of £144 million was paid during 1994–95 and £154 million in 1995–96.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What representations the Bar-Registered Parliamentary Group have made to them since the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 4 July 1995 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 73) and whether they have included suggestions for curbing excessive fees for barristers.
Both my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have received a number of representations from the Bar Parliamentary Group since 4 July 1995. I met with the Group on 22 November 1995 and on 30 April 1996, in both cases with regard to the Government's proposals for legal aid reform. My honourable friend received representations from the Bar Parliamentary Group on 12 November 1996 in relation to the Bar's concern at my proposals to introduce civil standard fees for advocates. I have not received any specific suggestions from the Bar Parliamentary Group in relation to barristers' fees.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 30 January 1995 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 100) what is their current estimate of the number of barristers earning more than £100,000 annually from (a) criminal legal aid and (b) civil legal aid; and
Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 5 April 1995 (H.L. Deb., col. WA 23) what is their current estimate of the number of barristers earning more than £300,000 annually from (a) criminal legal aid and (b) civil legal aid.
It is estimated that during the 1995–96 financial year 277 barristers received total payments of more than £100,000 in respect of Crown Court legal aid, of whom 24 received total payments in excess of £300,000. In the same year it is estimated that 83 barristers received total payments of more than £100,000 from the legal aid fund, one of whom received total payments exceeding £300,0001.
1 The figures quoted in the Answer relating to the total amount paid to barristers are in respect of final bills paid during 1995–96. As such they may include payments for work done in earlier years but will not include payments on account for cases still current. The figures are inclusive of VAT and other disbursements necessarily incurred, but do not take account of amounts received or recovered by way of contributions or costs, or damages awarded in civil proceedings.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 5 May 1994 (H.L. Deb., col
WA 100) what was the average level of fees claimed by leading counsel out of the legal aid fund for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.
The information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 18 December 1996 (H.L. Deb., col.
WA 131) whether they will now provide a breakdown of amounts paid to individual barristers and solicitor firms in the case of R v. Kevin Maxwell and others.
It would not be appropriate for me to provide a breakdown of the amounts paid to individual barristers and solicitor firms in the proceedings against K. and I. Maxwell, L. Trachtenberg, R. Bunn, A. Fuller and M. Stoney because not all of the claims have been determined. I can confirm, however, that £12.17 million had been paid as of 20 February 1997 from the legal aid fund to lawyers who acted in this case. That sum includes £2.47 million paid on account in respect of the Crown Court proceedings and £0.83 million paid in respect of the magistrates' courts proceedings.