| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Genetically Engineered Cotton: Patent
Lord Kennet 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.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: 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
Lord Mason of Barnsley 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 Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): 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
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe 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 Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Lord Chancellor: The top five solicitors' firms recorded as receiving the highest total payments from the Legal Aid Board during 1995-96 were as follows:
(2) 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.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Lord Chancellor: 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.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Lord Chancellor: 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.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
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.
The Lord Chancellor: 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 £300,000 1 .
The Lord Chancellor: The information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Lord Chancellor: It would not be appropriate for me to provide a breakdown of the amounts paid to
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.
Firm Amount Paid (£ million)(2)
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
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 barristers' fees during the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96.
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.
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
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.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe 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.
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.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page