|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Mann: To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the legal aid bill for defending drug addicts in court was in (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. 
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the purposes will be of the Government amendments to the Mental Capacity Bill which he has indicated will be tabled in the other House. 
At Report Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill the Government undertook to amend the Bill in two key areas. The amendments fulfilling these commitments have now been tabled for debate at Committee in the House of Lords. They provide additional reassurance sought by the House in two key areas. The first amendment relates to decisions about life-sustaining treatment in the context of best interests determinations for people who lack capacity. It provides that when someone is making a decision about whether the provision of life-sustaining treatment is in the best interests of a person lacking capacity, he cannot be motivated by any desire that the person lacking capacity
24 Jan 2005 : Column 144W
should diefor whatever reason. The amendment tabled in the House of Lords on 18 January will replace the existing clause 4(5). It states:
"Where the determination relates to life-sustaining treatment he must not, in considering whether the treatment is in the best interests of the person concerned, be motivated by a desire to bring about his death."
This emphasises that the person assessing best interests must look only at the treatment which might be given, for example its possible benefits and burdens. He must not bring into the process any wish or desire to end the person's life. This should lay to rest any lingering doubt that the Bill will permit euthanasia.
The second area of amendments concerns advance decisions to refuse treatment. The amendments tabled on 18 January mean that an advance decision will have no application to any treatment which a doctor considers necessary to sustain life unless strict formalities have been complied with. These are that the decision must be in writing, signed and witnessed. In addition, there must be an express statement that the decision stands "even if life is at risk". These amendments build on the already significant safeguards in the Bill surrounding advance decisions, and respond in particular to points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the ministerial engagements (a) out of London and (b) in London that the Secretary of State has cancelled since 1 January 2004. 
Mr. Leslie: There is no full record kept of cancelled engagements in the Lord Chancellor's diary. When engagements have had to be cancelled, wherever possible we try to re-instate them at a later date. All engagements are subject to Ministerial and Parliamentary business.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the removal of the hereditary baronetcy from Sir Mark Thatcher. 
Mr. Heald: To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the UK residency requirements are to vote in general elections; and if he will make a statement on the eligibility of (a) citizens from the European Union who are not UK or Irish citizens and (b) non-EU migrants with a right to remain to vote in general elections in the UK. 
Residence for the purpose of eligibility to be included in electoral registers entitling electors to vote at UK general elections is not defined in law but has been ruled by the courts to entail a considerable degree of permanence. Electoral Registration Officers decide in the light of the relevant circumstances whether a person
24 Jan 2005 : Column 145W
may be said to be resident at a particular address. Eligibility to vote in general elections in the UK does not extend to (a) citizens of European Union States who are not UK or Irish citizens, unless they are also resident qualifying Commonwealth citizens (Cypriot or Maltese) and (b) non-EU migrants with a right to remain unless they also are resident Commonwealth citizens whose right is still extant.
Mr. Rammell: The UK, as lead nation, remains committed to supporting the Afghan Government in the implementation of their comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy. We are working with the Afghan Government and others to increase activity in all areas of their strategy over the coming yearthe principles of which were underlined by President Karzai during the first Afghan Counter Narcotics National Conference held at the beginning of December shortly after his inauguration. As well as co-ordinating the activity of international partners, we are providing substantial financial and practical supportspending more than £100 million over the period 200306.
I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement I made on Afghanistan: Counter Narcotics on 29 November 2004, Official Report, columns 1718WS. Since then, we have already seen a number of developments, such as the start of the Criminal Justice Task Force training programme in December, which will help to bring about the successful prosecution of drugs traffickers. So far over the last financial year, we have run seven training courses on intelligence and investigation techniques for the Afghan Counter-Narcotics Police; supported over five major seizures; provided a mobile forensic laboratory; and helped to establish regional law enforcement offices in seven provincial centres outside Kabul.
Mr. Rammell: HM Customs and Excise estimate that approximately 2530 tonnes of heroin is smuggled into the UK each year and that over 95 per cent. originates from Afghanistan. This represents less than 10 per cent. of Afghanistan's potential heroin production in 2004.
The UK, as lead nation, is committed to supporting the Afghan Government in the implementation of their comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy. I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement I made on Afghanistan: Counter Narcotics on 29 November 2004, Official Report, columns 1718WS.
24 Jan 2005 : Column 146W
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department sent observers to the African Union summit in Gabon; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Mullin: We did not send observers to the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council meeting in Libreville, Gabon on 10 January 2005. We do however, follow closely the AU's development. I will attend the next AU summit in Abuja later this month.
Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he makes an evaluation of the human rights performance of recipient countries in decisions on their eligibility to purchase British armaments. 
Mr. MacShane [holding answer 20 January 2005]: The United Kingdom has one of the strictest and most transparent arms export licensing systems of any country. All export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other announced Government policies. The criteria include our commitment not to issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. The Government will also exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU.
Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the governments of China's neighbouring countries on the lifting of the EU's embargo on the sale of armaments to the People's Republic of China. 
Mr. Rammell [holding answer 20 January 2005]: The review of the EU Arms Embargo on China and any decisions arising from it are to be undertaken by the EU only. But in discussions, China and other countries in the region have expressed an interest in the issue. The EU will take all relevant factors into account in the review.
The European Council in December 2004 discussed the embargo and invited the Luxembourg Presidency of the EU to take forward work on the review. The Council underlined that the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China, neither in quantitative terms nor in qualitative terms. The European Council also recalled the importance of the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports, including criteria regarding stability and security in the region.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|