|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his position at the UN Review Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons in New York in June; whether he has discussed this matter with his US counterpart; what his understanding is of the position the US may take at the conference; whether he has proposals to put to his US counterpart to try to influence that country's position; and if he will make a statement. 
The UK is working with many other countries, including the US, to ensure that the Review Conference helps to strengthen the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) and
3 May 2006 : Column 1658W
to facilitate its implementation. In particular the UK is working with others to promote global guidelines for national controls on SALW transfers to be agreed at the Review Conference. The UK has had productive dialogue with the US on SALW issues ahead of the Review Conference, including between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his US counterpart as well as at official level.
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's definition of terrorism is; what assessment he has made of the merits of agreeing a globally-accepted definition of terrorism; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: The definition of terrorism in UK law is contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by section 33 of the Terrorism Act 2006. In November 2005, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to undertake a review of the definition. Lord Carlile is intending to report later this year.
The Government see great advantage in an internationally agreed definition of terrorism and have been working to achieve one through the conclusion of a UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Regrettably, the UN membership has yet to reach final agreement on the convention, but the UK will continue to press for progress.
Mr. David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the EU on the continuing proscription of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran in the last 12 months. 
Dr. Howells: The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran) appears on the EU's list of persons, groups and entities which are subject to restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism under Council Regulation 2580/2001-EC. The Court of First Instance of the European Communities is currently considering a challenge by the MEK to their inclusion on that list. The UK has contributed to those proceedings, but since judgment in the case is awaited it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.
Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many transfer application requests have been submitted relating to the UK/India Prisoner Transfer Agreement; and how many such requests have been approved. 
Dr. Howells: To date, three British nationals in prison in India have submitted requests to transfer to the UK under the UK/India Agreement on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. One Indian national in prison in the UK has submitted a request to transfer to India. No requests have yet been approved. The authorities in the UK and India are still considering all four requests.
Dr. Howells: The UK/India Agreement on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons was signed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil on 18 February 2005 and came into force on 21 November 2005. We are working closely with the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs to process the first requests for transfer.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions (a) the UK has voted against and the US has voted for and (b) the UK has voted for and the US has voted against the adoption of measures by the United Nations Population Fund since 1997. 
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from his Pakistani counterparts regarding the US-India nuclear deal; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Straw: I have not received any representations from my Pakistani counterparts regarding the US-India Civil Nuclear Co-operation Initiative. My officials discussed the Initiative, among other issues, with their Pakistani counterparts during the inaugural UK-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue in October 2005.
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government are reviewing their policy towards India's possession of nuclear weapons following the recently concluded US-India nuclear deal; and if he will make a statement. 
The Government's policy on India's possession of nuclear weapons has not changed. We do not and will not support India's nuclear weapons programme. We remain committed to the objective of universalisation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which India can join only as a non-nuclear weapons state. But we recognise that this is a long-term objective.
3 May 2006 : Column 1660W
We warmly welcomed the announcement of the US-India Civil Nuclear Co-operation Initiative in July 2005 as we believe that the deal can make a significant contribution to energy security, development, economic and environmental objectives for India and the international community, as well as bringing advantages for non-proliferation.
Vera Baird: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps she plans to take to permit civil action in cases of assault to be commenced beyond the limitation period in circumstances where the assaulter has been enriched after that date. 
Under the Law Commission's proposed regime, there would be a primary limitation period of three years from the date that the claimant knows the relevant facts. These are (a) the facts which give rise to the cause of action; (b) the identity of the defendant; and (c) that the injury was significant. An injury would be considered significant if a reasonable person would think that it was worth making a claim, assuming the defendant does not dispute liability and is able to satisfy a judgment. The impecuniosity of the defendant may therefore prevent time running. In addition, in personal injury cases, the court would have a discretion to disapply the limitation period if it would be equitable to do so. There would be no time limit on the exercise of this discretion.
The Government have announced their acceptance in principle of the Law Commission's recommendations, subject to further consideration of certain aspects of the report, 16 Jul 2002, Official Report, column 272W. This work is now well advanced and we hope to be able to conclude it shortly. We will then seek a legislative opportunity to reform the law.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the evidence of her Department's permanent secretary on 28 February 2006 to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, what assessment she has made of the potential administrative impact on her Department of releasing information collected in the 1911 census. 
Ms Harman: In order to make the 1911 census returns accessible to as many people as possible and to prevent its reading rooms being overwhelmed by demand, The National Archives intends to make them available on the internet for the first working day of 2012. Digitisation of the records will take approximately five years. In this context TNA has considered the administrative impact of making returns available in response to specific requests before the online service is launched.
In line with Treasury policy, TNA intends to use a commercial supplier to digitise the records. Allowing the public to access records during this process would cause
3 May 2006 : Column 1661W
repeated disruptions to the scanning process, and make it highly unlikely that any reputable commercial organisation would wish to embark on this large scale programme.
As is the case for any paper records nearly 100 years old, the 1911 returns are in fragile condition. Repeated handling by staff and members of the public would cause rapid deterioration in their condition. In some cases the original record could become unreadable and the unique information in the lost forever.
TNA estimates that a significant number of staff might have to be diverted from other work to deal with requests for census records. This would severely impact on its ability to provide a service to its many other customers.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|