Epiphania Bonjesi still lines in my heart

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA1

Written Answers
Monday, 21 March 2005.
Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the director of marketing and communications for Waterways Ireland was appointed under current Northern Ireland legislation. [HL1620]

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): The appointment to this post would have been subject to the law of Northern Ireland.
Malawi: Budget Support

Baroness Stern asked Her Majesty's Government:

What budgetary support the Department for International Development is now providing to the government of Malawi; and whether budgetary support has been given to reforming the police force in Malawi under the safety, security and access to justice programme. [HL1712]

Baroness Amos: DfID is providing £15 million of budget support in the financial year 2004-05 for the Malawi Government's programme of macro-economic stabilization. That aid is not earmarked for particular sectors, such as the police. The Malawi safety, security and access to justice programme also does not provide budgetary support. However, DfID has provided £4 million of other financial aid for police reform since 2001.

Baroness Stern asked Her Majesty's Government:

In light of reports of the shootings of Epiphania Bonjesi, Dadly Lupesya and Nashaz Sakala in Malawi, what consideration has been given to suspending direct budget support until reassurances have been given that all cases of alleged shootings of unarmed civilians will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. [HL1713]

Baroness Amos: The shootings of Dadly Lupesya and Nashaz Sakala took place in 2001 during rioting over the re-allocation of funding for road building and that of Epiphania Bonjesi in May 2004 during rioting at the time of elections in May 2004. Following the election, the Minister of Home Affairs confirmed to DfID that it was the government of Malawi's intention to inquire into the shootings in May 2004. He has since advised that investigations are on-going. The Malawi Government have no plans to reopen inquiries into the earlier shootings at present.

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA2

Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the budgetary and staff implications of the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/3332); and within which departmental budget such costs fall. [HL1723]

Baroness Amos: The Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/3332) ratifies the agreement signed in Geneva on 9 December 2002, to establish the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (AITIC) as an intergovernmental organisation. Seven donor (sponsor) countries and 37 beneficiary countries have signed the agreement so far. All seven sponsoring members (Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK) have pledged funding towards AITIC's first five years of operation as an intergovernmental organisation. This is laid down in Annexe I to the agreement.

The UK has pledged £1 million to be disbursed as three annual payments. The Department for International Development (DfID) has overall responsibility for the agreement and for implementing its provisions in the UK. UK contributions will therefore be paid through DfID funds.

The UK will participate actively in the Council of Representatives (the governing body of AITIC), which meets at least once a year. DfID's aim is to ensure that the AITIC follows best management practice in its operations and meets the needs of its clients effectively. Existing DfID staff will undertake this work as part of their normal duties. No additional staff will be required.
Control Orders

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the statement by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 1 March (Official Report, col. 121), whether the right of appeal relating to non-derogating control orders is intended to enable the court to determine that the control order should not have been made because it was not necessary for purposes connected with the protection of members of the public from the risk of terrorism. [HL1609]

The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Secretary of State may apply to the court for permission to make a non-derogating control order. The function of the court is to consider whether the Secretary of State's grounds for making an order are obviously flawed. If the court gives permission to the Secretary of State to make the order, the court will give directions for a hearing in relation to the order as soon as reasonably

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA3

possible after it has been made. At both the consideration of permission and the substantive hearing, the court will consider the question of whether the control order is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 8 to 11

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the statement by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 1 March (Official Report, col. 121), which decided case establishes that the concept of proportionality is "at the very core of the concept of judicial review", other than cases involving alleged breaches of European Community law or European Convention on Human Rights law. [HL1610]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Lord Chancellor's statement concerned the approach to be taken in cases involving Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is well-established that, in assessing whether any interference with those rights is justified, the courts must consider whether the interference is justified by legitimate aim, and whether it is proportionate. The Lord Chancellor's statement was not concerned with the more general development of judicial review, which is a matter for the courts.
Anti-terrorism Legislation

Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they plan to organise an ad hoc conference of senior judges to discuss alternatives to the existing anti-terrorism legislation. [HL1673]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No.
Iraq: Legal Advice

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the start and termination dates of the periods since 1 January 2003 for which Christopher Greenwood QC was hired to give advice on (a) the legality of military action in Iraq, and (b) other matters; and what sums he has been paid in respect of each matter. [HL1590]

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): In relation to Iraq, Professor Christopher Greenwood QC was first instructed on 13 March 2003. He was retained to assist in relation to legal issues arising from the Iraq conflict, but was not instructed to advise on whether military action would be lawful.

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA4


It is not possible to give a date when Professor Greenwood ended his assistance in relation to this issue. He has been instructed on a number of occasions by government departments in relation to a variety of different legal issues relating to the conflict and its aftermath and is currently acting in the case of R (on the application of Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence concerning civilian deaths in Iraq, which has now reached the Court of Appeal.

Over the same period, Professor Greenwood was instructed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office in relation to a number of other legal issues not connected to the Iraq conflict. Details of the issues on which Professor Greenwood has been instructed to provide legal advice are withheld on the grounds that this would disclose information related to the formation of government policy. Professor Greenwood has, however, acted for the Government in relation to a number of cases in the domestic and international courts during this period: the Ojdanic case in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; Federal Republic of Yugoslavia v United Kingdom in the International Court of Justice; the General Assembly request to the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the Palestinian wall (UK observations on admissibility); R (on the application of the European Roma Rights Centre and others) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and others; and R (on the application of Abbasi and Mubanga) v the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others. Professor Greenwood also acted in relation to the individual SIAC appeals and the SIAC derogation appeal before the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, although he did not appear in court in these cases.

Information about Professor Greenwood's professional fees is not held centrally as he has been instructed by several different government departments. While every effort has been made to provide full and complete information, records do not exist to verify precisely what fees have been charged on all matters going back to January 2003. The best information that can be obtained is that, as at 21 March 2005, his professional fees in relation to work connected with the conflict in Iraq amounted to approximately £46,000 (excluding VAT). As at the same date, his fees in relation to other matters amounted to approximately £53,500 (excluding VAT).

Anti-terrorism: Warrants to Search Premises

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 8 February (WA 103), whether they will now collate from the 43 police forces in England and Wales the information on the number of houses that have been raided by police on anti-terrorism warrants since 11th September 2001. [HL1691]


21 Mar 2005 : Column WA5


The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): This information is not collected for terrorism or other legislation centrally, either in the Home Office or elsewhere, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Asylum Seekers: Allegations of Racism

Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their response to allegations of racism and violence against detainees within the asylum system, in particular in contracted-out detention centres and removal arrangements. [HL1785]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality has asked Stephen Shaw, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, to undertake an independent investigation into the allegations of racism and mistreatment of detainees at Oakington and during escort. GSL, which manages and operate the centre at Oakington, has also mounted an internal investigation into these allegations.
Turkey: Human Rights

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they propose to make on the cases of the Turkish parliamentarians, Merve Kavakc"i and Leyla Zana and others, which were initially considered by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1994 and 2001 respectively, in the light of Turkey's commitment to the Copenhagen principles. [HL1517]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): The Government continue to monitor the human rights situation in Turkey closely. Officials at our embassy in Ankara attend trials and raise specific cases with the Turkish authorities when appropriate. We raised the case of Leyla Zana and her three MP colleagues, Selim Sadak, Hatip Dicle and Orhan Dogan frequently prior to the Court of Cassation's decision to order a second retrial; a decision that the UK Government welcomed, and the European Commission noted as evidence that "the higher courts are delivering judgments applying the amended provisions adopted by the various packages of political reforms." The retrial is continuing, with the next hearing expected to take place on 22 April. We will not make further representations during the trial. Merve Kavakc"i is now living in the United States as a citizen of the United States.

The December European Council endorsed the European Commission's view that Turkey had sufficiently fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria and that accession negotiations be opened. It will be important, however, that Turkey continues to make progress against the Copenhagen criteria. We will continue to urge the Turkish Government to ensure

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA6

the full and consistent implementation of the reforms passed, but are confident that all remaining concerns will be addressed during the accession process.
Diplomatic Missions

Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are content for a person accredited to a national diplomatic mission in the United Kingdom to hold the citizenship of a country other than that of the mission concerned; if so, whether such persons are also required to hold the citizenship of the country from which they are accredited; and whether they will list those national diplomatic missions where they believe any of those accredited hold citizenship of countries other than that of the mission. [HL1684]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 provides that a country may freely appoint its own nationals as members of the diplomatic staff of its diplomatic mission. However, the consent of the receiving state is required where a person is a national of the country he is appointed to represent and also a national of the receiving country or is a national only of the receiving state. Whether or not a person holds the citizenship of a third country is not relevant to his or her acceptance as a member of a mission. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would not consider British nationality a bar to the appointment of a person to the diplomatic mission of a country of which they are also nationals. As indicated in my reply to the noble Lord on 10 January 2005 (Official Report, col. WA 3–WA 4), we estimate that fewer than 10 members of diplomatic missions in London hold British citizenship, but that accurate details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 also provides that receiving states may reserve the right to consent to the appointment of a third country national, who is not also a national of the sending country, to the diplomatic staff of a mission. Any such request would be considered on its merits. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not aware of any current appointments that would fall into this category.

The appointment of other categories of staff (administrative and technical and service) at diplomatic missions is not subject to any nationality considerations.
Defence Procurement: EU Standards

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they expect to adopt European Union standards for defence procurement. [HL1448]


21 Mar 2005 : Column WA7


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): There is no process or plan formally to adopt European Union standards for defence procurement. The use of standards in the United Kingdom is normally on a voluntary basis so the Ministry of Defence does not specifically "adopt" standards. Instead, it seeks to ensure that its project managers select the most appropriate standard to meet their requirements from the full range of civil, commercial and military standards in accordance with an order of preference or hierarchy. This hierarchy gives preference to a British standards implementation of a European standard.

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they plan to replace their existing defence procurement standards with harmonised European Union standards. [HL1449]

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence seeks to ensure that its project managers select the most appropriate standard to meet their requirements from the full range of civil, commercial and military standards in accordance with an order of preference or hierarchy. This hierarchy places a British standards implementation of a European standard at the top. Hence existing European standards that have been implemented by British standards should be used in preference to UK defence standards, if they meet our requirements. A number of defence standards have already been cancelled as a result of such implementations. Should new European standards be implemented that meet UK requirements currently addressed by a defence standard, then that defence standard would be cancelled.
Information Commissioner

Lord Lea of Crondall asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to evaluate the effectiveness of the Information Commissioner in:

(a) ensuring that marketing companies, when notified of telephone numbers that are registered as not wishing to receive cold calls, comply with the relevant order; and

(b) giving clear details of a one-stop shop for complaints, so that infringements of such orders can be investigated. [HL1588]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The Information Commissioner is a statutory supervisory authority, fully independent of government, established to oversee the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Consequently, he has responsibility for enforcing the statutory regime, including compliance by marketing companies and dealing with complaints. The commissioner is required

21 Mar 2005 : Column WA8

to lay an annual report before Parliament on the exercise of his functions under the legislation for which he has enforcement responsibility.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has a limited sponsorship role in relation to the Information Commissioner's Office, covering financial and business planning matters. Ministers from the department meet with the Information Commissioner on a regular basis to discuss particular issues of concern with regard to both freedom of information and data protection policy matters.