Skip to main content

Written Answers

Volume 578: debated on Monday 10 February 1997

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Written Answers

Monday, 10th February 1997.

Bahrain: Shaikh Al-Jamri

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will take any action in support of the appeal by the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers for the release of Judge Abdul Amir al-Jamri in Bahrain, and in particular, whether they will ask the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to visit Bahrain to ascertain, if possible, how long the government intend to keep the judge and other persons in detention without charge or trial.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

We have seen the statement issued by the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Our Embassy in Bahrain are already making enquiries about Shaikh al-Jamri. We welcome the recent visit to Bahrain by the International Committee for the Red Cross and understand from the UN Centre for Human Rights that the Working Group is considering a visit to Bahrain.

Bosnia: Human Rights Report

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to respond to the detailed recommendations made in the report by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki.

The Unindicted: Reaping the Rewards of Ethnic Cleansing, about obstruction of the Dayton Accords by the de facto authorities in the Republic Srpska, and particularly by Mr. Dragan Kijac, who is described as "Minister of the Interior", and if so, whether they will place a copy of the response in the Library of the House.

We do not intend to respond to this report. The members of the Peace Implementation Council, meeting in London on 4th–5th December 1996, agreed that their willingness to devote further resources to Bosnia and Herzegovina depended upon a strengthened commitment from Bosnia's leaders to implementation of the Peace Agreement in all areas.

Turkey And Bosnia: Military Relations

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the military relations between the Government of Turkey and the Government of Bosnia, or members of the Government of Bosnia, including those connected with the United States "Equip and Train" process, are fully transparent to them, and to other European Governments, as required by several of the organisations of which both the United Kingdom and Turkey are members.

I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave on 12th December 1996 (Hansard, vol. 576, col. WA 97–98).

Nato Enlargement: Alterations To Treaties

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Secretary-General of NATO has been authorised by other NATO Governments to discuss the future operation of the Treaties governing Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe and Conventional Forces in Europe, in the context of the proposed expansion eastwards of NATO.

The Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces is a bilateral issue between the United States and Russia. The adaption of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe is being negotiated in Vienna by delegations of the 16 Allies and the other states parties, including Russia. It is natural for this subject to arise also in the NATO Secretary-General's discussion with the Russian Foreign Ministry.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Secretary-General of NATO has been authorised by the United States to discuss with Russia the United States' proposed re-negotiation of the United States'—Russian ABM Treaty and prospects for the future of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties, in the context of the proposed expansion of NATO.

The treaties referred to are bilateral issues between the United States and Russia. Any negotiation is not, therefore, a matter for the NATO Secretary-General.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Secretary-General of NATO has been authorised by members of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to discuss its new roles, given the implications for this organisation of the proposed NATO expansion eastwards.

The NATO Secretary-General is negotiating about the relationship between NATO and Russia on the basis of a mandate agreed by the Alliance as a whole. This does not extend to matters which are the subject of bilateral, or multilateral treaties, or are proper to other organisations, which can only be dealt with by the contracting parties, or members.

Nato And Eu Enlargement: Linkage

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their reaction to statements from the Government of Turkey that it sees NATO enlargement as "inextricably" linked with its own accession to the European Union

(The Times, 31st January 1997).

We do not consider that the processes of NATO and EU enlargement are formally linked, however complementary they may be in their shared aim of enhancing stability across Europe. The Turkish Government are aware of this view.

Nato Enlargement: Costs

asked Her Majesty's Government:Why has there been no work in NATO on the criteria for judging the acceptability of the costs of enlarging NATO.

NATO is working intensively to ensure that enlargement achieves its basic goal—enhancing security and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area. That is the fundamental criterion for judging the acceptability of any costs which might arise. Between now and the July Summit in Madrid, NATO will undertake an analysis of the military factors associated with the accession of potential new members and the resource implications. This work will help to inform decisions on enlargement taken at the summit.

Turkey: Order For Battle Tanks

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, in the light of (a) their disapproval of the possible purchase of anti-aircraft/anti-missile missiles from Russia by the Government of Cyprus; (b) the presence in Turkish-occupied Cyprus of Turkish armed forces, including tanks; and (c) Turkish suppression of the Kurdish minority in Turkey, they will discuss with the Governments of France, Germany and the United States the propriety of allowing firms to tender for a reputed $3 billion order from Turkey for 800 battle tanks.

We have no plans to do so. Any British application to export battle tanks to Turkey would be considered in the light of established criteria, including the UN, EU and OSCE guidelines to which we are committed.

Continental Shelf

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether there are fewer nominations than positions in the next tranche of appointments to Institutions under the UN Law of the Sea Convention, particularly to the body concerned with definitions of the continental shelf, and whether the Institutions and the United Kingdom will not suffer unless some of the British experts who are available are nominated, which they cannot be if Her Majesty's Government has not ratified the convention by 5th February.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for a Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf comprising 21 members. At the close of nominations for the election to the Commission, there were 26 candidates. There is no United Kingdom candidate. We shall be working closely with our partners to seek to ensure the election of the most competent experts in the fields of geology, geophysics and hydrography.

"Bloody Sunday": Release Of Records

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will suspend the 30-year rule in respect of documents and other evidence concerning the death and injuries that occurred in Derry, Northern Ireland, on 30th January 1972.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office
(Baroness Denton of Wakefield)

Following a request from solicitors acting for the "Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign" the Government reviewed all the records relating to the Widgery Tribunal and released all but one of these files in advance of their 30-year point. The Government have no plans to release the remaining papers, which are closed for 75 years for reasons of personal sensitivity.

Cormorants

asked Her Majesty's Government:What information they have about the "appropriate measures" being considered by the European Commission with a view to removing cormorants from Annex I (Protected) to the Birds Directive; andWhat representations they are making to the European Commission to have cormorants removed from Annex I (Protected) to the Birds Directive.

No proposal to remove the cormorant sub-species Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis from Annex I to the EC Wild Birds Directive has been received from the Commission.The species of cormorant on Annex I to the Wild Birds Directive,

Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis, is not prevalent in the United Kingdom. The Government have, therefore, made no representations to the Commission concerning the removal of this species from Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive.

Listening Devices And Confessionals

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the police have, in recent years, placed listening devices in confessionals.

Extensive enquiries by the police have identified no cases where listening devices have been placed in confessionals.

Asylum Seekers

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many asylum seekers are currently being detained; andHow many asylum seekers had been detained for a year or more at the end of 1996.

As at 11th December 1996, a total of 754 persons, who had sought asylum at some stage, were detained, of whom 30 had been in detention for a year or more.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have plans to reduce the average period of detention for asylum seekers.

Detention for asylum seekers is used only very sparingly, and for the shortest possible periods. Detention is often extended as a result of factors beyond our control—for example, legal action taken on behalf of detainees or the provision of documents from receiving countries.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they are satisfied that their proposal to detain asylum seekers on a ship in Portland Harbour will comply with the principles adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1988 for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

The Government have no present plans to use a ship for the detention of asylum seekers.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the reasons for detaining asylum seekers and how they ensure that such detention is used sparingly.

The Immigration Service only uses detention where there is no alternative and where there are good grounds for believing that the person will not comply with any conditions of temporary admission. At any one time, only about 1 per cent. of asylum seekers are held in detention and the great majority of these will have had their applications refused. The new Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 strengthens asylum procedures so that unfounded asylum claims and appeals can be determined more quickly.Each person's detention is subject to regular review at increasingly senior levels within the Immigration Service. In addition, under the provisions contained in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, all detainees, with certain limited exceptions, may now apply to the independent appellate authorities for bail. Detention may also be challenged in the courts.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the conditions in which asylum seekers are being detained at Rochester Prison and for how long each of them has been detained.

Immigration detainees are held within the Detainee Centre at Rochester Prison. This comprises two dedicated separate wings. There are excellent physical education and library facilities, and all detainees have the opportunity for work or education and free association. All the varying dietary requirements are catered for. There is a well equipped hospital wing and detainees have access to medical care comparable to that which would be provided by a general practitioner to a member of the public.As of 3rd February, 174 detainees were held in Rochester Detainees Centre, of whom 139 are asylum seekers. The breakdown of the duration of their detention under immigration powers is:Less than 1 month: 311–2 months: 172–3 months: 203–6 months: 276–12 months: 3512 months or more: 9

Prisons: Census Of Religious Affiliation

asked Her Majesty's Government:When the Prison Service will conduct the annual census of religious affiliation in prisons for 1997 and when the results will be published.

Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

Letter to Lord Avebury from the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt.

Lady Blatch has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the 1997 census of religious affiliation.

The Annual Census of Religious Affiliation in prison for 1997 will be conducted in March and the results will be published as soon as possible after the information is obtained.

Prison Rules And Young Offender Institution Rules: Consolidated Edition

asked Her Majesty's Government:How much it cost to print and post copies of the consolidated Prison Rules and Young Offenders Institution Rules, and whether this expenditure would have been avoided if this and other public domain documents were made available on the Internet.

The consolidated versions of the Prison Rules 1964 and the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 were printed and distributed as Prison Service Instruction 4/1997 issued on 16th January 1997 at a cost of £3,373.98.The availability of these documents on the Internet would not have reduced the overall cost of production or distribution.

Income Tax Thresholds

Cross asked Her Majesty's Government:What would be the cost to the Exchequer of raising the threshold for income tax on a married couple with two teenage children to (a) £200 a week, and (b) average adult earnings in manufacturing industry.

The estimated full year cost at 1997–98 income levels of allowing married couples with two or more children age 11 to 16 to have one personal allowance of £200 a week is £0.6 billion. An allowance of £401.40 per week, which is the estimated average full time male earnings in manufacturing industry in 1997–98, is estimated to cost £1.9 billion.These estimates have been calculated on the basis that the personal allowance is given to the husband in the first instance and the wife gets no allowance. However, if the husband is unable to use all of his allowance then he is able to transfer the unused allowance to his wife. The married couple will still be able to claim the married couple's allowance.It is not possible to identify teenage children, because the exact age of the child is not known; instead children are grouped according to a range of ages 0–4, 5–10 and 11–16.

Schemes Withdrawn from the 1996 Programme
RouteSchemeCost £ million*Stage ReachedExpenditure to end December 1996 £ million
Western Orbital Route, Hereford & Worcester, Staffordshire615.0PRA
M1J28–31 Widening, Derbyshire, Rotherham MB233.0PE0.9
M1J25–28 Imp (Phase 2: Widening), Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire195.7PC1.2
M1J21A–23A Widening (Phase 2), Leicestershire84.5PE1.6
M1J21–21A Widening (Phase 2), Leicestershire85.1PE0.5
M1J19–21 Widening, Leicestershire155.9PE2.4
M1J14–19 Widening, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire299.5PE8.3
M3J2–3 Widening, Surrey71.6PC1.9
M3J3–4 Widening, Surrey48.4PCIncluded in M3 J2–3
M4J8/9–10 Widening, Berkshire52.0PC8.7
M4J10–12 Widening, Berkshire161.1PEIncluded in M4 J8/9–10
M4J12–15 Widening, Berkshire, Wiltshire290.1PE2.0
M4J18–20 Widening & M5 J15–J17 Widening, Avon54.8PE1.1
M5J29–30 Imp, Devon29.5PE<0.1
M5J1 & 2 Imp, Sandwell MB +7.8PE<0.1

"Britannia"

asked Her Majesty's Government:When the Government of the day announced that the present Royal Yacht "Britannia" was to be constructed, where the announcement was made and by which Minister.

The decision to build "Britannia" was announced by means of a press notice issued by the Admiralty on 8th October 1951, although provision for a Royal Yacht in place of the "Victoria and Albert III" was first announced by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Stanhope, in the Statement to Accompany Navy Estimates on 23rd February 1939.

Longer Term Road Schemes

Official Report, the table showing details of the longer-term road schemes which were withdrawn on 26th November 1996, as set out in a letter dated 6th January 1997 from Viscount Goschen in reply to an earlier written Question from Lord Marlesford, and whether they will at the same time give their estimate of the amount of public money spent on each scheme up to 26th November.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport
(Viscount Goschen)

This information has now been compiled and a list appears below of the schemes withdrawn showing the estimated total cost and expenditure to December 1996 on each. About 38 per cent, of the expenditure relates to the acquisition costs of land and property which will be programmed for disposal.

Schemes Withdrawn from the 1996 Programme

Route

Scheme

Cost £ million*

Stage Reached

Expenditure to end December 1996 £ million

M6J19–20 Widening, Cheshire43.2PC1.7
M6J9 & 10 Imp, Walsall MB +15.5PEIncluded in M5 J1–2 imp
M6J2–4 Widening, Warwickshire, Coventry MB, Solihull MB100.4PC1.8
M6M1–J2 Widening, Leicestershire, Warwickshire69.3PEIncluded in M6 J2–4
M11J9–14 Widening, Cambridgeshire, Essex67.3PE2.4
M20J3–5 Widening, Kent39.9PI37.8
M23J9–10 Widening, Surrey, West Sussex7.4PE<0.1
M25J3–5 Widening, Kent117.3PE<0.1
M25J5–7 Widening, Kent, Surrey104.0OP3.6
M25J19–23 Widening, Hertfordshire114.6PE2.0
M25J23–26 Widening, Hertfordshire, Essex107.3PE3.8
M25J26–28 Widening, Essex138.0PE0.7
M25J3O–31 Imp, Essex57.1PE0.3
M27J11–12 Widening, Hampshire58.7PE<0.1
M27J4–11 Widening, Hampshire142.4PE<0.1
M40J3–4 Widening & J4 Imp, Buckinghamshire103.6PC4.5
M42J1–3A Widening, Warwickshire, Hereford & Worcester268.4PC6.0
M62J21–24 Widening, Rochdale MB, Calderdale MB, Kirklees MB183.6PRA2.9
M62J18–21 Widening, Rochdale MB150.7PRAIncluded in M62, J21–24
M62J6–7 Widening, Knowsley MB6.2PRA1.1
M4–A4 Link Hounslow, LB Ealing, LB Hounslow30.3PE0.5
A1(M)Leeming—Scotch Corner, N Yorkshire74.8OM2.9
A1(M)Dishforth—Leeming, N Yorkshire88.7OP3.7
A1(M)Tuxford—Blyth, Nottinghamshire127.4PE1.5
A1(M)Newark—Tuxford, Nottinghamshire197.2PEIncluded in A1(M) Tuxlorth to Blyth
A1(M)Stamford—Newark, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire288.4PEIncluded in A1(M) Tuxlorth to Blyth
A1(M)Stamford Bypass, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire51.6PC0.6
A1(M)Peterborough—Stamford, Cambridgeshire105.9PCIncluded in A1(M) Stamford Bypass
A1(M)Baldock—Alconbury, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire224.2PC2.4
A1(M)J9–10 Widening, Hertfordshire51.3PE1.3
A1(M)J4–6 Widening, Hertfordshire39.2PE9.2
A1(M)J1–4 Widening, Hertfordshire176.6PEIncluded in A1(M) J4–6
A1(M)Wetherby Bypass, Leeds MB +26.6PC0.3
A1(M)Bramham—Wetherby, Leeds MB +7.2PC0.2
A1Morpeth—Lanchead Imp, Northumberland +21.9PE<0.1
A1Blyth GSJ, Nottinghamshire +16.0PE<0.1
A1Five Lanes End GSJ, Nottinghamshire +16.0PE0.2
A1Markham Moor GSJ, Nottinghamshire +16.0PE<0.1
A5Nesscliffe Bypass, Shropshire13.8PI1.5
A5Weeford—Fazeley Imp, Staffordshire18.6PRA0.4
A6Disley & High Lane Bypass, Stockport MB, Cheshire, Derbyshire97.2PRA5.9
A6Kibworth Bypass, Leicestershire15.3PC0.4
A6Bedford Western Bypass A6—A428 Link, Bedfordshire5.1PRA0.5
A10Wadesmill High Cross—Colliers End Bypass, Hertfordshire20.4PI2.5
A12Wrentham Bypass, Suffolk3.8PC<0.1
A12Yoxford Bypass, Suffolk5.7PE<0.1
A12Wickham Market—Saxmundham Imp, Suffolk19.2PI1.6
A12Martlesham—Wickham Market Imp, Suffolk14.8PE0.3
A12Hatfield Peverel—Marks Tey Imp, Essex90.0PE0.9
A12M25 J28—Chelmsford Imp, Essex67.8PE0.4
A14Quarries Cross GSJ, Suffolk +4.6PE<0.1
A14M11–A10 Widening, Cambridgeshire +33.0PE1.4
A21Kippings Cross—Lamberhurst Imp, Kent27.2PRA2.6
A23Handcross—Warninglid Imp, W Sussex14.3PI1.6
A27Lewes—Polegate Imp, E Sussex26.0PRANow split into three schemes
A27Worthing—Lancing Imp, W Sussex +151.2PI36.7
A3OTemple—Higher Carblake Imp, Cornwall10.0PE<0.1
A3OZelah—Chiverton Imp, Cornwall17.7PE<0.1
A3OSt Erth—Newtown Imp, Cornwall18.5PRA1.1
A35Chideock/Morecombelake Bypass, Dorset29.1OM6.8
A36Beckington—East of Bath Imp, Avon119.9PRA2.6
A36Wylye—Codford Imp, Wiltshire7.9PE<0.1
A38Stoketon Cross—Trerulefoot, Cornwall84.8PRA1.5
A38Dobwalls—Bodmin Imp, Cornwall26.0PRA2.7
A46Alcester-Stratford Imp, Warwickshire11.3PI0.9
A47Acle Straight Imp, Norfolk23.0PE0.6
A47Blofield Acle Imp, Norfolk4.8PRA0.3
A47North Tuddenham—Easton Imp, Norfolk19.2PE0.2
A47Little Fransham Bypass, Norfolk10.1PE<0.1
A47Middleton & East Winch Bypass, Norfolk19.3PE<0.1
A47Wisbech Bypass A1101 Junction Imp, Norfolk5.1PE<0.1
A47Tilney—Kings Lynn Imp & A47/A17 GSJ, Norfolk10.6PE<0.1
A49/A51Calverley—Tiverton Bypass, Cheshire26.1PE<0.1
A51Littleton Bypass, Cheshire12.0PE0.1
A52Saxondale—Grantham Imp, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire54.6PRA1.7
A52Radcliffe-on-Trent Bypass, Nottinghamshire23.9PRAIncluded in A52 Saxondale-Grantham Imp
A65Coniston Cold Bypass, N Yorkshire6.6PRA0.3
A69Warwick Bridge Bypass, Cumbria16.4PE<0.1
A102Blackwall 3rd Crossing, LB Greenwich, LB Tower Hamlets ++179.4PC4.4

Schemes Withdrawn from the 1996 Programme

Route

Scheme

Cost £ million*

Stage Reached

Expenditure to end December 1996 £ million

A120Braintree—Marks Tey Imp, Essex58.2PE0.7
A259Dymchurch—M20 J11 Imp, Kent19.2PI2.5
A259Si Mary's Bay & Dymchurch Bypass, Kent28.0PI1.9
A259New Romney Bypass, Kent10.3PI0.8
A259Rye Bypass, E Sussex39.5PRA2.7
A259Winchelsea Bypass, E Sussex17.5PRA1.0
A259Guestling Thorn & Icklesham Bypass, E Sussex18.8PRA1.6
A303Amesbury—Berwick Down Imp, Wiltshire +38.8PC1.9
A380Kingskcrswcll Bypass, Devon60.0PRA1.7
A406East London River Crossing, LB Greenwich, LB Newham ++415.8OM32.4
A419Blunsdon Bypass, Wiltshire16.3PRA0.9
A435Studlcy Bypass, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester70.4OM4.8
A449/A456Kidderminster, Blakedown & Hagley Bypass, Staffordshire, H&W159.6OM3.5
A590Ulvcrston-Dallon Bypass, Cumbria17.3PC<0.l
A650Shipley Eastern Bypass, Bradford26.2PRA1.7
A5225Wigan-Westhoughlon Bypass, Bolton, Wigan150.9PI9.6
*= Costs include Works, Land and preparation costs @RCPI125.
+= Schemes formerly in the main programme.
++= Withdrawn as a public sector scheme; replaced by potential private sector PFI project.
Stage Codes:-
PE=Programme Entry.
PC=Public Consultation.
PRA=Preferred Route Announced.
OP=Order Publication.
PI=Public Inquiry.
OM=Orders Made.
SOW=Start of Works.