| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Wednesday, 26th February 1997.
Sudanese Refugees in Uganda
Lord Eames asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider that the growing number of refugees from the Sudan in refugee camps in Uganda justifies further special aid as either direct action by the United Kingdom or through international aid agencies.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): UNHCR estimate there are 230,000-240,000 Sudanese refugees in Uganda. There has been no marked increase in numbers over the past year--and conditions in both long-term and transit camps are relatively good.
Since 1991 the UK has committed over £2 million bilaterally to support NGO programmes to help Sudanese refugees in Uganda. Additional support has also been provided through the EU and UNHCR, to which we are major contributors. We are prepared to help further as urgent needs arise.
Pension Rights on Divorce
Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they intend to publish a White Paper dealing with the treatment of pension rights on divorce.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): The Government published a Green Paper on this topic in July 1996. We promised that, following the consultation period, a White Paper would be published in the spring.
We have today published the White Paper Pension Rights on Divorce (Cm 3564). Copies are in the Library.
The Arts: Tax Treatment of Corporate Donations
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will consider making private sector donations to the arts tax-deductible to encourage the private sector to match National Lottery grants and, if so, what would be the cost to the Treasury of such a scheme.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As most arts organisations are charities, corporate donors can already receive tax relief for donations they make to them both under the Gift Aid scheme and by deed of covenant. The Government therefore have no plans to change the tax treatment of donations made to the arts.
Longer Term Road Schemes, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Lord Cochrane of Cults asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer given by Viscount Goschen on 10 February (WA 8), whether they will list separately the longer term road schemes which have likewise been deferred in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): In Scotland, three schemes which it had been intended to start in the period up to 1999 have had to be deferred for future consideration. These are the A.68 Dalkeith Northern By-pass, the A.92 Balmedie to Tipperty and the A.830 Arisaig to Kinsadel.
In Northern Ireland the following schemes have been deferred from the five-year major works programme for the period 1996/97--2000/01 which was announced in February 1996:
| Scheme | Previous programme start date | Total estimated cost £ million |
| Omagh Through-pass slip road | 1996/97 | 0.5 |
| A.26 Antrim-Ballymena Stage 3 | 1997/98 | 3 |
| A.2 Limavady By-Pass Prelim Contract | 1997/98 | 0.8 |
| A.2 Limavady By-Pass Stage 1 (Earthworks) | 1998/99 | 2.1 |
| Limavady By-Pass Stage 2 (Bridgeworks) | 1999/00 | 2.2 |
| Limavady By-Pass Stage 3 (Roadworks) | 2000/01 | 2.9 |
| Strand Road Londonderry Stage 2 | 1997/98 | 1 |
| A.26 Windyhall Dualling Coleraine | 1998/99 | 0.9 |
| Comber By-Pass Stage 2 | 1998/99 | 3.1 |
| A.5 Garvaghy Omagh | 1999/00 | 0.5 |
| Northway Portadown | 1999/00 | 1.3 |
| A.5 Leckpatrick Strabane | 1999/00 | 0.8 |
| A.6 Toome By-Pass | 2000/01 | 2.3 |
Details of the revised trunk road programme for Wales will be published in the Welsh Office departmental report to be issued shortly.
Retention of Case Papers
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are the provisions on the retention of case papers in the code of practice prepared under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My right honourable friend published a draft code on 4 July 1996 for consultation, modified it in the light of representations received, and laid it before Parliament on 18 December. The draft code required each chief police officer to develop his own policy on the retention of case papers, taking account of certain specified criteria. He received representations that the code should prescribe a national policy on this issue so that each police force followed the same practice. The version of the code which he laid before Parliament on 18 December contains a national policy, in that it
requires each police force to retain all material obtained by the police in the course of a criminal investigation which might be relevant to the investigation at least until the conclusion of the trial; and, if the case resulted in a conviction following a not guilty plea, then to retain the material for a further minimum period of one year following summary conviction or three years following conviction on indictment.At present, police forces are not subject to any statutory requirement to retain material for any specified period. Each police force has its own policy and there is no common practice. The effect of the provisions in the code is to increase protection for defendants by inserting a statutory minimum retention requirement where none exists at present. These provisions leave untouched the current ability of the police to retain material for any length of time beyond that. In very serious and high-profile cases, my right honourable friend would expect the police to continue to retain material for a long time, as they have tended to do under the informal arrangements which currently exist.
Nevertheless, in the light of concerns expressed recently about these provisions, he has concluded that the interests of justice would be better served by an alternative set of requirements. Accordingly he intends to amend the code of practice so as to require the police to retain material at least until the end of the trial; and then, in the event of a conviction, either until the convicted person is released from custody, if the court imposes a custodial sentence, or until six months from the date of conviction, if the court imposes a non custodial sentence. Where a convicted person is given a short custodial sentence and would be released within six months of conviction, material would still have to be retained for at least six months. If an appeal is in progress at the end of one of these periods, or an application is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the period will be extended until the appeal is concluded or the commission makes a decision on the application.
My right honourable friend will lay an amended code of practice before Parliament on Thursday, 27 February.
Evidence Acquired by Intrusive Surveillance
The Marquess of Ailesbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, when the police have obtained film by bugging private premises, they retain unrestricted control over its subsequent use.
Baroness Blatch: Not in all cases. Some material obtained through the use of intrusive surveillance is used only for intelligence purposes and will remain in control of the police. However, other material is used as part of the evidence in court proceedings. In those cases, the material will be made available to the prosecution and will also be disclosed to the defence. If it is not to be used but there is a prosecution, it will form part of the unused material and it will be a matter for the courts to decide how it should be used.
Firearms Dealers: Compensation
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the statement made by Baroness Blatch on 4 February 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 1593) as to the Government's satisfaction that their proposals for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, what are their reasons for concluding that the denial of compensation to registered firearms dealers for the destruction or blighting of their licensed businesses as a result of the Bill would be in accordance with each of the general rule, the deprivation rule and the control of use rule contained in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Sporrong v. Sweden and Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v. Sweden as requiring the striking of a fair balance and the payment of compensation to individuals to avoid their carrying an excessive and disproportionate burden; and
Further to the statement made by Baroness Blatch on 4 February 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 1593) as to the Government's satisfaction that their proposals for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether they consider that the denial of compensation to registered firearms dealers for the destruction or blighting of their licensed businesses as a result of the Bill would (a) be fair to such dealers; (b) would avoid such dealers having to bear an excessive burden for the enactment of the Bill; and, if so, what are their reasons.
Baroness Blatch: The Government have carefully considered this matter. We are satisfied that our compensation proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
We consider that those proposals properly address the question of striking a fair balance, as interpreted in the cases referred to, within the margin of appreciation which the United Kingdom enjoys to determine measures of control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest. We do not consider that the effect of the Bill on firearms dealers will amount to depriving them of the use of their business in the sense meant by Article 1 of the Convention. Firearms dealers will receive compensation for their stocks of newly prohibited firearms and ancillary equipment. We believe that it would be unfair, and would not represent a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements for the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, if we were to establish a precedent which meant that compensation was to be paid for any loss of business which might result from legislative requirements imposed in the interests of public safety.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |