asked Her Majesty's Government:What information has been provided to them about the arrest and detention without trial of women in Bahrain, about attacks by security forces on school children and about the taking of hostages from the families of persons sought by the security forces and whether, as part of their policy of helping to ensure the security and stability of Bahrain, they will urge the Bahraini authorities to refrain from provocative acts and to enter into dialogue with the democratic opposition.

We receive information on events in Bahrain from a number of sources and continue to follow developments closely. It is for the Bahraini authorities themselves to judge how best and within what timescale to address concerns there. We condemn violence and encourage political solutions.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Israeli threats to bomb any civil nuclear facility that might be built in Iran in accordance with all IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) regulations was discussed at the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting, and whether any such attack would amount to state terrorism.

No such threat was discussed at Sharm-el-Sheikh. The lawfulness of any such threat or attack would depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Israeli Officer charged with countering and pursuing terrorism has been given a "free hand" (a) only in Israel proper, or (b) only in Israel and the occupied and ex-occupied territories, or (c) anywhere at all (that is, not excluding Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and the Gulf States), and if the last, whether this approach to terrorism was discussed and explicitly approved at the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting.

Israel's counter-terrorist policy was not discussed at Sharm El-Sheikh. We encourage Israel to combat the terrorists in the fullest possible co-operation with the Palestinian Authority and her neighbours.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they or any of the European members of NATO or Russia intend to contribute to the $800 million—$1 billion fund for arming and training the Bosnian Government's forces in Turkey and elsewhere, as a result of the fundraising conference mounted by the United States in Turkey last week, and attended by European and Islamic states.

We do not intend to contribute to the fund for training and equipping the armed forces of the Bosniac-Croat Federation. We cannot answer for other nations.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether all the signatories to the Dayton Agreement and members of the UN Security Council are agreed that the billion dollar arming of one Dayton signatory is compatible with the "need" mentioned in the Agreement "to avoid an arms race in the region" (Annex 1-B, Article 1, Dayton Accords).

We are content with US assurances that the programme they are leading to train and equip the armed forces of the Bosniac-Croat Federation will be consistent with all aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement. We cannot answer for other nations.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the United States project to set up a Muslim state armed by a $800 million—$1 billion fund, in ex-Yugoslavia is being discussed either in NATO (in the light of the responsibilities NATO is now shouldering in the Balkans) or in the UN Security Council, and if not, whether they will start such discussions before NATO disagreements deepen, given the likelihood of the Orthodox Serbs and the Catholic Croats being armed by the Russians and the Germans.

The US-led programme is designed to train and equip the armed forces of the Bosniac-Croat Federation. It will be entirely separate from the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) and is not a matter for NATO or the UN.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What system is currently in place to enable Western European Union to act in support of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe other than with the agreement of the United States.

The WEU Council of Ministers agreed at Petersberg in June 1992 that it was prepared to support, on a case-by-case basis, the peacekeeping activities of the OSCE. Under WEU procedures, decisions to mount operations are taken by the ten Full Members, although naturally the agreement of the United States and other members of the Atlantic Alliance would be required for any operations drawing on NATO assets.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, in the light of the European Union Statement of 8th March "regretting" Chinese missile tests in the Taiwan Straits (HL Deb., 19th March,

We are not aware of any planned EU statements to the US on this issue. However, we wholeheartedly support the sensible precautions taken by the United States to defuse the tension and monitor the situation in the Straits.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How they and the NATO Alliance propose to secure the release of all prisoners still being held in Bosnia-Herzegovina or nearby, in contravention of the Dayton Agreement.

We have repeatedly called on the parties to honour their obligations under the Dayton Agreement to release all prisoners. We are encouraged by the recent release of some prisoners; and urge all parties to stand by their undertakings to release all prisoners.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Why they have provided no information to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in their Thirteenth Periodic Report, about the position in Dependent Territories other than Hong Kong.

The reports on the Dependent Territories to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and on the UN treaty monitoring bodies, are based on material supplied by their governments. Assembling the necessary information is an important but time-consuming task for small administrations. We hope to be able to submit the outstanding reports by early autumn.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they agree with the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, paragraph 282, that there is, at present, no suitable tribunal available apart from the European Court of Justice which could sensibly be given the task of interpreting and applying conventions drawn up within the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar.

Article K.3.2(c) provides that "[Third Pillar] conventions may stipulate that the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on any disputes regarding their application, in accordance with such arrangements as they may lay down". For some conventions there may be no need to specify any tribunal, relying on national courts, or other fora.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether their commitment to a strong independent European Court of Justice ("A Partnership of Nations", paragraph 36) means that they accept that it must remain the exclusive function of the Court to ensure that, in the interpretation and application of the treaty establishing the European Community, the law is observed.

The role of the European Court of Justice in ensuring that in the interpretation and application of the treaty the law is observed is clearly set out in Article 164 of the treaty. National courts are also competent to apply EC law.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether any of the proposals contained in

The UK's proposal concerning damages, national time limits and limitation of retrospective effect are designed to reduce the likelihood of the European Court of Justice delivering judgments which impose disproportionate costs on businesses and member states. The proposal for rapid amendment of EC legislation could be used to limit the effects of a Court ruling which interprets legislation in a way which was not intended by the Council. The proposed treaty provision clarifying the application of subsidiarity in the interpretation of EC law would ensure that the principle is fully taken into account by the Court when deciding cases.As the White Paper makes clear, the Government are still considering their detailed approach. We may have further proposals to put to the IGC across the range of issues which the conference will address.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will report on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 19th and 20th March.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with at the meeting were as follows.The Council agreed "A" points—among other things, a recommendation on football hooliganism which followed an initiative proposed by the United Kingdom, and a joint action on the exchange of liaison magistrates between member states of the European Union.The Council reached political agreement on a joint action on racism and xenophobia. The effect of the new measure will be to strengthen judicial co-operation between the member states in combating racist or xenophobic acts committed within the European Union.The Council agreed the financial regulation relating to the budget for Europol, and considered briefly the question of whether the European Court of Justice should be given jurisdiction to interpret the Europol Convention.The Presidency reported progress in negotiations on the draft External Frontiers Convention, and concluded that officials should continue work on developing the draft instrument.The Council considered a draft multi-annual work programme, providing a framework for action in the Third Pillar, to be taken forward by several Presidencies. A further version of the programme will be prepared in the light of discussion, for adoption at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June.The Council discussed proposals for areas of activity in the Third Pillar which should be funded from the 1996 Community budget, and agreed that the issue should be examined further by officials.The Council discussed a number of outstanding issues arising from negotiations on the draft convention on simplified extradition procedures. The Presidency hoped that a final text of the convention would be ready to be adopted by the Council in June.The Council noted progress on the draft convention on corruption, and agreed that work on the text should continue with a view to its being submitted for adoption by the Council in June.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What discussions they have had with chief police officers of England and Wales concerning psychologically damaged people who possess firearms, and whether they propose to make any statement of policy before the summer recess.

Section 27 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits a chief officer of police from granting a firearms certificate to someone of intemperate habits or unsound mind. In 1992 the Firearms Consultative Committee discussed whether it would be possible to strengthen the provisions of the Firearms Acts regarding the granting of firearm certificates to people with mental disorders. The committee includes chief officers from England and Wales and Scotland.The Government have announced the setting up of an inquiry into the shootings in Dunblane Primary School, to be conducted by Lord Cullen, who will have the power to look at the existing controls on firearms and to make recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations for changes in firearms controls which the inquiry may propose.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the "sets of advice" referred to in the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 28th February (

The "sets of advice" referred to in my Written Answer on 28th February (WA 100–101) are those mentioned in this Question. Advice on this subject was also received from my Advisory Committee on 25th July 1995. All the issues surrounding this matter are receiving active consideration and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will issue and publish guidelines for prosecutions for the offence of torture in breach of Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Prosecutions for offences of torture require the consent of the Attorney General. In considering whether to grant that consent, he will consider whether the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What, in the light of the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry have since the early 1970s and the European Communities' First Non-Life Directive considered losses to be mutalised, they consider to be the legal position of Lloyd's Names who have for the last twenty years been recruited on the basis of being sole traders, and whether by implication the published statements recruiting investors to Lloyds were untrue in a material respect.

As detailed in the reply given by my noble friend on 9 May 1995, Official Report, cols. WA 5–6, Names' losses are not mutalised, other than through the support that has been provided by Lloyd's Central Fund since the 1920s, which is recognised in the Insurance (Lloyd's) Regulations 1983, (implementing the first EC non-life insurance directive). Names' responsibilities vis-à-vis the central fund have been made clear through Lloyd's publication, Membership: The Issues, and a publication in these or substantially similar terms has been drawn to the attention of prospective members for many years.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the outcome of the Access to Work review.

The Government are committed to helping people with disabilities to secure jobs and satisfying careers at work. Our Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will significantly improve opportunities for disabled people. Access to Work (ATW) also has a part to play, and the Government recognise the high regard which disabled people and employers have for the programme.Access to Work is not a demand-led programme. Although we increased the 1995–96 budget substantially during the year from £13.4 million to £l9 million, we had to announce on 14th December restrictions on eligibility conditions for the remainder of 1995–96 in order to prevent a major cost overrun. We also announced that, before we reached decisions on 1996–97, my department would hold discussions with the disability and employer organisations principally concerned and we would take into account research and other data on the first year of operation of the programme.In the light of these considerations we have decided for 1996–97 that, in addition to continuing to provide help to those who are unemployed, eligibility should be reinstated for employees and the self employed. This restores the eligibility criteria which applied before the December announcement.As now, the Employment Service (ES) will continue to identify approved costs for the purposes of ATW with reference to the value of any wider benefit which accrues to the organisation. ATW will continue to meet 100 per cent. of the approved costs for unemployed disabled people. The ES will also pay 100 per cent. of approved costs for Travel to Work (TtW) and for Communicator Support at Interviews (CSI) for all groups.For disabled people in employment, ATW will meet up to 80 per cent. of approved costs above a cost threshold of £300 per year. With a view to the needs of the most severely disabled, ATW will however, provide 100 per cent. of all such costs in excess of £10,000 over three years. The Government recognise that particular factors may apply in the case of the self employed and we shall consider this issue further.Multi-year commitments to individuals will be made for a maximum of three years. The ES will accordingly review cases where commitments have been made for longer periods.The new arrangements will apply from 1st April for the unemployed, as will TtW and CSI for all groups. Other support for employed people will take effect from 1st June, so that the necessary new administrative arrangements on cost sharing can be implemented effectively by the ES, along with support of the self employed.The ATW budget is cash limited and expenditure will be monitored closely. Should further prioritisation of ATW support prove necessary at any point, the Government will continue to give top priority to the unemployed, followed by those in work who suffer the onset of a disability or major worsening of a disability, and then those whose job circumstances change and those who seek to move to a new employer.The ES will continue to discuss detailed implementation of the arrangements with the organisations principally concerned. On this basis, we are pleased to announce that we are increasing planned provision for ATW in 1996–97 from £12.9 million to £19 million. We shall be considering provision for ATW in future years in the course of the 1996 public expenditure round.This significant increase in the budget for the programme will, I believe, be welcomed. In particular, I am pleased we have been able to restore eligibility to the employed and the self employed, as this will help them retain jobs and to progress at work. I believe that these new arrangements strike the appropriate balance in helping to meet the needs of people with disabilities, particularly those who need the most expensive types of help, while putting the available resources to best use.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What developments there have been in forestry since the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 19th July 1994.

My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced in his statement on 19th July 1994 in another place the Government's intention to establish Forest Enterprise, the forest management arm of the Forestry Commission, as a Next Steps Agency. The Government have also completed preparation of the new agency's Framework Document and it is published today. A new edition of the access guidelines, dealing with procedures for protecting continued public access to disposals subjects has also been published today. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library. The new agency will come into existence on 1st April 1996.The arrangements set out in the Framework Document will:-enable the commission to set out and explain its proposals for achieving environmental, financial, social and other outputs;permit clear targets to be set for the agency;allow the agency to demonstrate its success in meeting those targets. The Government expect these new arrangements to allow Forest Enterprise to achieve a real improvement in all areas of its output. Forest Enterprise will, of course, continue to operate firmly within the Government's multi-purpose forestry policy.In August 1994 we published the consultation document