House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 10 Jul 2001 (pt 12)

EU Enlargement

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will respond to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2000–01: European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up, HC318. [2397]

Peter Hain: The Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report will be laid before the House rises on 20 July.

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 477W

Iraq

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the Government of the Russian Federation concerning Her Majesty's Government's recent proposals to the Security Council of the United Nations on Smart sanctions on Iraq. [2707]

Mr. Bradshaw: On 1 June 2001 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1352, confirming its agreement to the principles which we and the US had proposed to change the sanctions regime against Iraq. Later this month, however, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov sent a message to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which he made it clear that the Russian Federation would not allow the adoption of our draft resolution detailing those new arrangements. There have also been regular discussions at official level both in New York and elsewhere in recent months. We will continue to try to resolve outstanding issues with the Council members in the hope of introducing our new approach as soon as possible.

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the recent proposals by Her Majesty's Government to the Security Council of the United Nations concerning Smart sanctions on Iraq. [2733]

Mr. Bradshaw: I have placed in the Library copies of the intervention made by our Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the formal Security Council debate on Iraq on 26 and 28 June and his Explanation of Vote during consideration of the oil for food rollover resolution on 3 July. These set out the proposals we have put forward for changes to the UN sanctions regime against Iraq.

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent decision by the United Nations Security Council to delay a decision on sanctions against Iraq for another five months. [2671]

Mr. Bradshaw: On 1 June 2001 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1352, confirming its agreement to the principles which we and the US had proposed to change UN controls on Iraq. The Council set itself 30 days to agree the details of arrangements to improve the flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people while maintaining controls on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Despite widespread international support for these proposals the Council was unable to agree the details within that time scale. While we regret that we were unable to introduce the new system as early as we had wished, we remain serious about addressing the Iraqi people's needs and controls on Iraq's weapons. Work will therefore continue in New York to resolve the outstanding issues as soon as possible.

Nuclear Material (Russia)

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last reviewed the aid budget allocated to assist the former Soviet Union with a programme to contain then reduce the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. [1513]

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 478W

Peter Hain: In 2000 Her Majesty's Government carried out a comprehensive review of the nuclear safety and security problems in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This included an assessment of the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. As a result of the review the UK pledged £84 million over three years to tackle a range of nuclear problems in the former Soviet Union, including that material in the Murmansk region. This budget is regularly reviewed by an inter-departmental committee, which includes officials from the FCO.

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Russian counterparts to agree a programme for disbursing aid to assist in containing and reducing hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region; and when he expects that programme to commence. [1514]

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to meet his Russian counterpart to discuss the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. His predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), most recently discussed this issue with the Russian Prime Minister on 20 September 2000. There have also been regular and frequent contacts at official level to seek to move forward with disbursing our assistance. I hope such a programme will commence in the near future, once the Russian Government agree to provide adequate legal framework arrangements.

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of (a) the extent of the hazards of deteriorating nuclear material (i) in the Kola Peninsula and (ii) at other military establishments in Russia; and (b) the costs of eliminating these hazards. [1515]

Peter Hain: In 2000 Her Majesty's Government carried out a comprehensive review of the nuclear safety and security problems in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This included an assessment of the hazards of nuclear material on the Kola Peninsula and at other military establishments in Russia. As a result of the review the UK pledged £84 million over three years to tackle a range of nuclear problems in the former Soviet Union. A top priority will be work to decommission radioactive waste from decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines: it is estimated that there are over 100 such vessels in and around the Kola Peninsula, and over 70 in the rest of the Russian Federation.

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy on pledging support to the Russian Federation Military Plutonium Disposition Programme; if he will place in the Library copies of (a) all UK submissions and (b) other submissions relevant to UK policy to the G8 meeting this month in Genoa, in respect of the deliberation of the Russian Plutonium Programme. [3010]

Mr. Bradshaw: The UK pledged £70 million over a 10-year period at the Okinawa Summit in July 2000 to support the Russian Federation Military Plutonium Disposition Programme. We have continued to play a full role in the programme through our membership of the G8 Plutonium Disposition Planning Group (PDPG), which has been dedicated to taking this work forward. The

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 479W

Group has met regularly since its formation in late 2000 and has produced a report for consideration at the Genoa Summit. An unclassified copy was placed in the House of Commons Library on 9 July 2001. We are aware of no other submissions to the G8 Summit in Genoa.

Amnesty International

Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to assist Amnesty International in securing the release of (a) U Ohn Maung, (b) U Sein Hla Oo, (c) Dr. Than Nyein and (d) U Tun Kywe in Burma. [3259]

Mr. Bradshaw: We take every opportunity bilaterally, through the EU and also the United Nations to press the Burmese regime to release all political prisoners.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, all four people mentioned are MPs-elect for the National League for Democracy, which overwhelmingly won the general

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 480W

election in Burma in 1990. The latest information we have from the National League for Democracy is that only three MPs-elect remain in prison and that all those listed have been released.

I very much welcome the recent release of over 30 MPs-elect from detention in Burma and hope this represents the start of an ongoing process leading to the early release of all political prisoners and national reconciliation.

Family Visit Visas

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa applications (a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused in (i) April and (ii) May. [3308]

Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest information from the 108 entry clearance posts which submit monthly statistical data is as follows:

Family visit visa applications 2001

Applications received Applications determined Applications allowed Applications refused

April May April May April May April May

1. Abidjan 26 29 24 31 23 30 1 1

2. Abu Dhabi 64 102 53 89 45 79 8 10

3. Abuja 0 27 0 15 0 9 0 6

4. Accra 1,969 2,410 1,294 2,373 302 1,346 992 1,027

5. Addis Ababa 15 10 15 11 7 4 8 7

6. Almaty 25 13 25 13 24 10 1 3

7. Amman 11 10 12 10 11 9 1 1

8. Amsterdam 48 57 48 57 43 56 5 1

9. Ankara 27 32 27 32 25 32 2 0

10. Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11. Baku 13 16 13 13 13 13 0 0

12. Bangkok 69 197 125 145 88 111 37 34

13. Banjul 80 104 60 67 51 59 9 8

14. Beirut 128 183 126 181 126 181 0 0

15. Belgrade 146 85 146 96 140 83 6 13

16. Bogota 103 158 103 158 95 146 8 12

17. Bombay 2,429 2,706 2,430 2,696 1,999 2,159 431 537

18. Bratislava 153 198 146 176 146 175 0 1

19. Brussels 33 18 14 7 14 6 0 1

20. Bucharest 111 182 112 179 106 174 6 5

21. Budapest 8 6 8 6 8 4 0 2

22. Cairo 193 322 186 316 179 298 7 18

23. Calcutta 338 450 337 449 335 445 2 4

24. Canberra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25. Casablanca 104 106 104 105 99 98 5 7

26. Chicago 200 368 182 356 180 355 2 1

27. Colombo 110 130 100 130 35 93 65 37

28. Copenhagen 45 53 43 49 43 49 0 0

29. Dakar ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾—

30. Damascus 50 108 49 107 45 102 4 5

31. Dar Es Salaam 90 123 89 130 79 116 10 14

32. Dhaka 521 569 421 509 246 297 175 212

33. Doha 22 45 22 45 19 43 3 2

34. Dubai 96 178 60 143 54 118 6 25

35. Dublin 16 37 20 32 18 30 2 2

36. Dusseldorf 331 316 302 261 301 258 1 3

37. Ekaterinburg 20 0 20 0 19 0 1 0

38. Geneva 65 85 62 80 61 74 1 6

39. Georgetown 47 74 62 74 61 67 1 7

40. Guangzhou 230 234 185 167 161 152 24 15

41. Hanoi 4 15 6 7 1 4 5 3

42. Harare ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— 0 0 ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾—

43. Havana 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 0

44. Hong Kong 44 95 34 72 34 72 0 0

45. Islamabad 2,994 ⁽³⁰⁾— 2,985 0 2,070 ⁽³⁰⁾— 915 ⁽³⁰⁾—

46. Istanbul 339 460 278 368 247 325 31 43

47. Jakarta 63 119 66 127 59 122 7 5

48. Jeddah 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10

49. Jerusalem 28 72 28 68 28 68 0 0

50. Kampala 186 116 175 108 148 93 27 15

51. Karachi 569 1,251 569 1,251 487 1,021 82 230

52. Kathmandu 0 152 0 117 0 98 0 19

53. Khartoum 100 115 51 78 37 58 14 20

54. Kiev 128 147 108 150 97 132 11 18

55. Kingston 118 140 113 129 103 114 10 15

56. Kuala Lumpur 17 22 18 22 15 17 3 5

57. Kuwait 42 67 42 67 35 59 7 8

58. Lagos 2,436 ⁽³⁰⁾— 1,710 0 1,614 ⁽³⁰⁾— 96 ⁽³⁰⁾—

59. Lima 21 52 21 52 21 50 0 2

60. Los Angeles 321 423 321 423 321 422 0 1

61. Luanda ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— 0 0 ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾—

62. Lusaka 66 ⁽³⁰⁾— 66 0 62 ⁽³⁰⁾— 4 ⁽³⁰⁾—

63. Madras 656 577 671 595 652 579 19 16

64. Madrid 29 38 29 38 29 37 0 1

65. Manila 145 223 145 223 93 155 52 68

66. Mexico City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

67. Minsk 31 39 30 31 30 30 0 1

68. Moscow 357 438 342 400 334 386 8 14

69. Muscat 100 96 100 92 95 89 5 3

70. Nairobi 238 342 238 342 211 303 27 39

71. New Delhi 2,017 2,991 2,017 2,991 1,371 2,160 648 831

72. New York 675 985 660 969 660 968 0 1

73. Nicosia 156 252 153 6 148 0 5 6

74. Oslo 73 99 72 92 71 92 1 0

75. Ottawa 336 522 248 431 247 431 1 0

76. Paris 339 348 328 353 326 352 2 1

77. Peking 202 355 196 345 182 337 14 8

78. Port Louis 373 605 373 601 356 585 17 16

79. Port of Spain 3 10 2 12 2 12 0 0

80. Prague 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81. Pretoria 12 19 12 11 10 9 2 2

82. Quito 18 30 18 28 18 28 0 0

83. Riga 6 ⁽³⁰⁾— 6 0 6 ⁽³⁰⁾— 0 ⁽³⁰⁾—

84. Riyadh 8 11 15 31 7 19 8 12

85. Rome 99 80 86 76 82 75 4 1

86. Sana'a 6 ⁽³⁰⁾— 6 0 4 ⁽³⁰⁾— 2 ⁽³⁰⁾—

87. Santo Domingo 3 4 3 4 2 3 1 1

88. Sarajevo 81 86 81 86 77 82 4 4

89. Shanghai 144 174 144 180 125 159 19 21

90. Singapore 36 55 32 57 31 57 1 0

91. Skopje 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1

92. Sofia 144 151 143 148 143 147 0 1

93. St. Petersburg 78 114 78 114 75 109 3 5

94. Stockholm 106 146 129 155 126 154 3 1

95. Taipei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

96. Tashkent 24 29 24 29 23 29 1 0

97. Tbilisi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

98. Tehran 0 1,099 1,554 1,063 1,515 1,018 39 45

99. Tirana ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— 0 0 ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾—

100. Tokyo 5 11 5 10 5 8 0 2

101. Tripoli 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

102. Tunis 130 155 130 155 105 116 25 39

103. Vienna 12 9 12 9 12 9 ⁽³⁰⁾— 0

104. Warsaw 1 5 0 3 0 1 0 2

105. Washington 0 504 0 497 0 496 0 1

106. Wellington 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0

107. Yaounde ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— 0 0 ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾— ⁽³⁰⁾—

108. Zagreb 137 131 132 131 127 128 5 3

Total 22,195 23,727 21,835 22,673 17,882 19,106 3,953 3,567

	Applications received	Applications determined	Applications allowed	Applications refused
	April	May	April	May	April	May	April	May
1. Abidjan	26	29	24	31	23	30	1	1
2. Abu Dhabi	64	102	53	89	45	79	8	10
3. Abuja	0	27	0	15	0	9	0	6
4. Accra	1,969	2,410	1,294	2,373	302	1,346	992	1,027
5. Addis Ababa	15	10	15	11	7	4	8	7
6. Almaty	25	13	25	13	24	10	1	3
7. Amman	11	10	12	10	11	9	1	1
8. Amsterdam	48	57	48	57	43	56	5	1
9. Ankara	27	32	27	32	25	32	2	0
10. Bahrain	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
11. Baku	13	16	13	13	13	13	0	0
12. Bangkok	69	197	125	145	88	111	37	34
13. Banjul	80	104	60	67	51	59	9	8
14. Beirut	128	183	126	181	126	181	0	0
15. Belgrade	146	85	146	96	140	83	6	13
16. Bogota	103	158	103	158	95	146	8	12
17. Bombay	2,429	2,706	2,430	2,696	1,999	2,159	431	537
18. Bratislava	153	198	146	176	146	175	0	1
19. Brussels	33	18	14	7	14	6	0	1
20. Bucharest	111	182	112	179	106	174	6	5
21. Budapest	8	6	8	6	8	4	0	2
22. Cairo	193	322	186	316	179	298	7	18
23. Calcutta	338	450	337	449	335	445	2	4
24. Canberra	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
25. Casablanca	104	106	104	105	99	98	5	7
26. Chicago	200	368	182	356	180	355	2	1
27. Colombo	110	130	100	130	35	93	65	37
28. Copenhagen	45	53	43	49	43	49	0	0
29. Dakar	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—
30. Damascus	50	108	49	107	45	102	4	5
31. Dar Es Salaam	90	123	89	130	79	116	10	14
32. Dhaka	521	569	421	509	246	297	175	212
33. Doha	22	45	22	45	19	43	3	2
34. Dubai	96	178	60	143	54	118	6	25
35. Dublin	16	37	20	32	18	30	2	2
36. Dusseldorf	331	316	302	261	301	258	1	3
37. Ekaterinburg	20	0	20	0	19	0	1	0
38. Geneva	65	85	62	80	61	74	1	6
39. Georgetown	47	74	62	74	61	67	1	7
40. Guangzhou	230	234	185	167	161	152	24	15
41. Hanoi	4	15	6	7	1	4	5	3
42. Harare	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	0	0	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—
43. Havana	2	1	2	1	2	1	0	0
44. Hong Kong	44	95	34	72	34	72	0	0
45. Islamabad	2,994	⁽³⁰⁾—	2,985	0	2,070	⁽³⁰⁾—	915	⁽³⁰⁾—
46. Istanbul	339	460	278	368	247	325	31	43
47. Jakarta	63	119	66	127	59	122	7	5
48. Jeddah	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	10
49. Jerusalem	28	72	28	68	28	68	0	0
50. Kampala	186	116	175	108	148	93	27	15
51. Karachi	569	1,251	569	1,251	487	1,021	82	230
52. Kathmandu	0	152	0	117	0	98	0	19
53. Khartoum	100	115	51	78	37	58	14	20
54. Kiev	128	147	108	150	97	132	11	18
55. Kingston	118	140	113	129	103	114	10	15
56. Kuala Lumpur	17	22	18	22	15	17	3	5
57. Kuwait	42	67	42	67	35	59	7	8
58. Lagos	2,436	⁽³⁰⁾—	1,710	0	1,614	⁽³⁰⁾—	96	⁽³⁰⁾—
59. Lima	21	52	21	52	21	50	0	2
60. Los Angeles	321	423	321	423	321	422	0	1
61. Luanda	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	0	0	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—
62. Lusaka	66	⁽³⁰⁾—	66	0	62	⁽³⁰⁾—	4	⁽³⁰⁾—
63. Madras	656	577	671	595	652	579	19	16
64. Madrid	29	38	29	38	29	37	0	1
65. Manila	145	223	145	223	93	155	52	68
66. Mexico City	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
67. Minsk	31	39	30	31	30	30	0	1
68. Moscow	357	438	342	400	334	386	8	14
69. Muscat	100	96	100	92	95	89	5	3
70. Nairobi	238	342	238	342	211	303	27	39
71. New Delhi	2,017	2,991	2,017	2,991	1,371	2,160	648	831
72. New York	675	985	660	969	660	968	0	1
73. Nicosia	156	252	153	6	148	0	5	6
74. Oslo	73	99	72	92	71	92	1	0
75. Ottawa	336	522	248	431	247	431	1	0
76. Paris	339	348	328	353	326	352	2	1
77. Peking	202	355	196	345	182	337	14	8
78. Port Louis	373	605	373	601	356	585	17	16
79. Port of Spain	3	10	2	12	2	12	0	0
80. Prague	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
81. Pretoria	12	19	12	11	10	9	2	2
82. Quito	18	30	18	28	18	28	0	0
83. Riga	6	⁽³⁰⁾—	6	0	6	⁽³⁰⁾—	0	⁽³⁰⁾—
84. Riyadh	8	11	15	31	7	19	8	12
85. Rome	99	80	86	76	82	75	4	1
86. Sana'a	6	⁽³⁰⁾—	6	0	4	⁽³⁰⁾—	2	⁽³⁰⁾—
87. Santo Domingo	3	4	3	4	2	3	1	1
88. Sarajevo	81	86	81	86	77	82	4	4
89. Shanghai	144	174	144	180	125	159	19	21
90. Singapore	36	55	32	57	31	57	1	0
91. Skopje	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	1
92. Sofia	144	151	143	148	143	147	0	1
93. St. Petersburg	78	114	78	114	75	109	3	5
94. Stockholm	106	146	129	155	126	154	3	1
95. Taipei	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
96. Tashkent	24	29	24	29	23	29	1	0
97. Tbilisi	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
98. Tehran	0	1,099	1,554	1,063	1,515	1,018	39	45
99. Tirana	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	0	0	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—
100. Tokyo	5	11	5	10	5	8	0	2
101. Tripoli	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0
102. Tunis	130	155	130	155	105	116	25	39
103. Vienna	12	9	12	9	12	9	⁽³⁰⁾—	0
104. Warsaw	1	5	0	3	0	1	0	2
105. Washington	0	504	0	497	0	496	0	1
106. Wellington	0	5	0	5	0	5	0	0
107. Yaounde	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	0	0	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—	⁽³⁰⁾—
108. Zagreb	137	131	132	131	127	128	5	3

Total	22,195	23,727	21,835	22,673	17,882	19,106	3,953	3,567

⁽³⁰⁾ Information not yet received from Posts

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 481W

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa refusals in relation to which (a) an appeal was received, (b) the refusal was overturned by an entry

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 482W

clearance manager after receipt of an appeal and (c) an appeal was despatched in (i) April and (ii) May. [3309]

Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest information from the 108 entry clearance posts which submit monthly statistical data is as follows.

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 483W

Family visit visa refusals 2001

Appeals received Refusals overturned by ECM Appeals despatched

April May April May April May

1. Abidjan 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Abu Dhabi 1 3 0 0 1 2

3. Abuja 0 9 0 0 0 4

4. Accra 22 36 2 0 24 17

5. Addis Ababa 2 1 0 0 0 2

6. Almaty 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Amman 1 0 1 0 0 0

8. Amsterdam 0 0 0 0 0 0

9. Ankara 0 0 0 0 0 0

10. Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0

11. Baku 0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Bangkok 3 11 1 0 2 9

13. Banjul 0 1 0 0 0 1

14. Beirut 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Belgrade 0 2 0 0 0 0

16. Bogota 1 0 0 0 1 0

17. Bombay 32 42 2 4 21 32

18. Bratislava 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. Brussels 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Bucharest 0 3 0 1 0 2

21. Budapest 0 0 0 0 0 0

22. Cairo 0 0 0 0 0 0

23. Calcutta 0 1 0 0 0 0

24. Canberra 0 0 0 0 0 0

25. Casablanca 0 0 0 0 1 0

26. Chicago 0 0 0 0 0 0

27. Colombo 8 10 1 2 7 8

28. Copenhagen 0 0 0 0 0 0

29. Dakar ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾—

30. Damascus 0 0 0 0 0 0

31. Dar Es Salaam 3 4 0 0 1 4

32. Dhaka 20 22 0 2 20 18

33. Doha 0 0 0 0 0 0

34. Dubai 5 0 0 3 4 6

35. Dublin 1 0 0 0 0 0

36. Dusseldorf 0 0 0 0 0 0

37. Ekaterinburg 0 0 0 0 0 0

38. Geneva 0 0 0 0 0 0

39. Georgetown 1 2 1 1 1 0

40. Guangzhou 2 2 2 0 2 0

41. Hanoi 0 0 0 0 0 0

42. Harare ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾—

43. Havana 0 0 0 0 0 0

44. Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0

45. Islamabad 166 ⁽³¹⁾— 6 ⁽³¹⁾— 50 ⁽³¹⁾—

46. Istanbul 3 5 1 0 4 5

47. Jakarta 3 0 0 0 3 0

48. Jeddah 0 0 0 0 0 0

49. Jerusalem 0 0 0 0 0 0

50. Kampala 1 2 1 0 1 0

51. Karachi 17 12 0 3 5 18

52. Kathmandu 0 0 0 0 0 0

53. Khartoum 0 8 2 0 2 6

54. Kiev 0 1 0 0 0 0

55. Kingston 0 0 0 0 0 0

56. Kuala Lumpur 1 0 0 0 1 0

57. Kuwait 0 0 0 0 0 0

58. Lagos 47 ⁽³¹⁾— 7 ⁽³¹⁾— 45 ⁽³¹⁾—

59. Lima 0 0 0 0 0 0

60. Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0

61. Luanda 0 0 0 0 0 0

62. Lusaka 0 1 0 0 0 1

63. Madras 3 1 0 0 5 2

64. Madrid 0 0 0 0 0 0

65. Manila 28 15 0 0 20 4

66. Mexico City 0 0 0 0 0 0

67. Minsk 0 0 0 0 0 0

68. Moscow 3 0 0 0 2 1

69. Muscat 1 0 0 0 1 0

70. Nairobi 2 0 0 0 2 0

71. New Delhi 45 51 4 8 31 24

72. New York 0 0 0 0 0 0

73. Nicosia 0 1 0 0 0 1

74. Oslo 1 0 0 0 0 0

75. Ottawa 0 0 0 0 0 0

76. Paris 0 0 0 0 0 0

77. Peking 1 0 0 0 1 0

78. Port Louis 1 4 1 0 0 4

79. Port of Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0

80. Prague 0 0 0 0 0 0

81. Pretoria 0 0 0 0 0 0

82. Quito 0 0 0 0 0 0

83. Riga 0 ⁽³¹⁾— 0 ⁽³¹⁾— 0 ⁽³¹⁾—

84. Riyadh 3 1 0 0 0 0

85. Rome 0 0 0 0 0 0

86. Sana'a 5 ⁽³¹⁾— 1 ⁽³¹⁾— 6 ⁽³¹⁾—

87. Santo Domingo 0 0 0 0 0 0

88. Sarajevo 0 0 0 0 0 0

89. Shanghai 0 0 0 0 0 0

90. Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 0

91. Skopje 0 0 0 0 0 0

92. Sofia 0 0 0 0 0 0

93. St. Petersburg 0 0 0 0 0 0

94. Stockholm 0 0 0 0 0 0

95. Taipei 0 0 0 0 0 0

96. Tashkent 0 0 0 0 0 0

97. Tbilisi 0 0 0 0 0 0

98. Tehran 2 4 0 0 1 2

99. Tirana ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾—

100. Tokyo 0 0 0 0 0 0

101. Tripoli 0 5 0 0 0 3

102. Tunis 1 12 0 0 1 12

103. Vienna 0 0 0 0 0 0

104. Warsaw 0 0 0 0 0 0

105. Washington 0 1 0 0 0 1

106. Wellington 0 0 0 0 0 0

107. Yaounde ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾— ⁽³¹⁾—

108. Zagreb 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 436 274 33 24 266 190

	Appeals received	Refusals overturned by ECM	Appeals despatched
	April	May	April	May	April	May
1. Abidjan	0	0	0	0	0	0
2. Abu Dhabi	1	3	0	0	1	2
3. Abuja	0	9	0	0	0	4
4. Accra	22	36	2	0	24	17
5. Addis Ababa	2	1	0	0	0	2
6. Almaty	0	0	0	0	0	0
7. Amman	1	0	1	0	0	0
8. Amsterdam	0	0	0	0	0	0
9. Ankara	0	0	0	0	0	0
10. Bahrain	0	0	0	0	0	0
11. Baku	0	0	0	0	0	0
12. Bangkok	3	11	1	0	2	9
13. Banjul	0	1	0	0	0	1
14. Beirut	0	0	0	0	0	0
15. Belgrade	0	2	0	0	0	0
16. Bogota	1	0	0	0	1	0
17. Bombay	32	42	2	4	21	32
18. Bratislava	0	0	0	0	0	0
19. Brussels	0	0	0	0	0	0
20. Bucharest	0	3	0	1	0	2
21. Budapest	0	0	0	0	0	0
22. Cairo	0	0	0	0	0	0
23. Calcutta	0	1	0	0	0	0
24. Canberra	0	0	0	0	0	0
25. Casablanca	0	0	0	0	1	0
26. Chicago	0	0	0	0	0	0
27. Colombo	8	10	1	2	7	8
28. Copenhagen	0	0	0	0	0	0
29. Dakar	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—
30. Damascus	0	0	0	0	0	0
31. Dar Es Salaam	3	4	0	0	1	4
32. Dhaka	20	22	0	2	20	18
33. Doha	0	0	0	0	0	0
34. Dubai	5	0	0	3	4	6
35. Dublin	1	0	0	0	0	0
36. Dusseldorf	0	0	0	0	0	0
37. Ekaterinburg	0	0	0	0	0	0
38. Geneva	0	0	0	0	0	0
39. Georgetown	1	2	1	1	1	0
40. Guangzhou	2	2	2	0	2	0
41. Hanoi	0	0	0	0	0	0
42. Harare	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—
43. Havana	0	0	0	0	0	0
44. Hong Kong	0	0	0	0	0	0
45. Islamabad	166	⁽³¹⁾—	6	⁽³¹⁾—	50	⁽³¹⁾—
46. Istanbul	3	5	1	0	4	5
47. Jakarta	3	0	0	0	3	0
48. Jeddah	0	0	0	0	0	0
49. Jerusalem	0	0	0	0	0	0
50. Kampala	1	2	1	0	1	0
51. Karachi	17	12	0	3	5	18
52. Kathmandu	0	0	0	0	0	0
53. Khartoum	0	8	2	0	2	6
54. Kiev	0	1	0	0	0	0
55. Kingston	0	0	0	0	0	0
56. Kuala Lumpur	1	0	0	0	1	0
57. Kuwait	0	0	0	0	0	0
58. Lagos	47	⁽³¹⁾—	7	⁽³¹⁾—	45	⁽³¹⁾—
59. Lima	0	0	0	0	0	0
60. Los Angeles	0	0	0	0	0	0
61. Luanda	0	0	0	0	0	0
62. Lusaka	0	1	0	0	0	1
63. Madras	3	1	0	0	5	2
64. Madrid	0	0	0	0	0	0
65. Manila	28	15	0	0	20	4
66. Mexico City	0	0	0	0	0	0
67. Minsk	0	0	0	0	0	0
68. Moscow	3	0	0	0	2	1
69. Muscat	1	0	0	0	1	0
70. Nairobi	2	0	0	0	2	0
71. New Delhi	45	51	4	8	31	24
72. New York	0	0	0	0	0	0
73. Nicosia	0	1	0	0	0	1
74. Oslo	1	0	0	0	0	0
75. Ottawa	0	0	0	0	0	0
76. Paris	0	0	0	0	0	0
77. Peking	1	0	0	0	1	0
78. Port Louis	1	4	1	0	0	4
79. Port of Spain	0	0	0	0	0	0
80. Prague	0	0	0	0	0	0
81. Pretoria	0	0	0	0	0	0
82. Quito	0	0	0	0	0	0
83. Riga	0	⁽³¹⁾—	0	⁽³¹⁾—	0	⁽³¹⁾—
84. Riyadh	3	1	0	0	0	0
85. Rome	0	0	0	0	0	0
86. Sana'a	5	⁽³¹⁾—	1	⁽³¹⁾—	6	⁽³¹⁾—
87. Santo Domingo	0	0	0	0	0	0
88. Sarajevo	0	0	0	0	0	0
89. Shanghai	0	0	0	0	0	0
90. Singapore	0	0	0	0	0	0
91. Skopje	0	0	0	0	0	0
92. Sofia	0	0	0	0	0	0
93. St. Petersburg	0	0	0	0	0	0
94. Stockholm	0	0	0	0	0	0
95. Taipei	0	0	0	0	0	0
96. Tashkent	0	0	0	0	0	0
97. Tbilisi	0	0	0	0	0	0
98. Tehran	2	4	0	0	1	2
99. Tirana	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—
100. Tokyo	0	0	0	0	0	0
101. Tripoli	0	5	0	0	0	3
102. Tunis	1	12	0	0	1	12
103. Vienna	0	0	0	0	0	0
104. Warsaw	0	0	0	0	0	0
105. Washington	0	1	0	0	0	1
106. Wellington	0	0	0	0	0	0
107. Yaounde	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—	⁽³¹⁾—
108. Zagreb	0	1	0	0	0	1

Total	436	274	33	24	266	190

⁽³¹⁾ Information not yet received from Posts

10 Jul 2001 : Column: 484W

Next Section

Index

Home Page