| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will set out the chronology of the decisions and events which have led to the granting of legal aid to Dr. Jawad Hashim.
The Lord Chancellor: Dr. Jawad Hashim was granted two legal aid certificates, in January 1992 and March 1993. Initially, his assets had been frozen by the courts and the legal merits of his case were supported by the opinion of leading counsel.
In June 1994, following a High Court judgment, the Legal Aid Board reviewed Dr. Hashim's legal aid status and found him to be the real owner of substantial assets, resulting in the revocation of one certificate in December 1994 and the suspension of the other. The second certificate was subsequently revoked in November 1995.
Dr. Hashim appealed against the revocations of his certificates. Both revocations were converted to discharges but the certificates were not reinstated.
I am unable to provide any further information about the factors which led to the board's decisions in this case, as I am bound by the confidentiality provisions of Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
Equal Pay Code of Practice
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether all employers will receive a copy of the Code of Practice on Equal Pay.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Emplyoment (Lord Henley): It would not be cost effective to distribute the Code of Practice to every employer. So far, over 7,000 copies have been distributed to a wide range of employers, employer and employee organisations and others, such as the Industrial Tribunals and Job Centres. The code has also been widely publicised in various employment journals and is available to all who wish to see it free of charge from the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In what format the Code of Practice on Equal Pay is to be produced for the general public.
Lord Henley: The Code of Practice has been produced in the form of a booklet comprising 21 pages in language readily understood by employers, employees and members of the public. It is available free of charge from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). I understand that the EOC have sent a copy of the code to the noble Baroness for information.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans there are to implement the Code of Practice on Equal Pay in the Department of Education and Employment.
Lord Henley: For many years it has been Civil Service policy to eliminate all unfair discrimination in its pay and personnel policies and procedures. The DfEE constantly monitors the effectiveness of its policies and revises these as necessary. The DfEE therefore welcomes the EOC Code of Practice.
Defence Industry Promotional Events on HM Ships
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How contributions towards costs are calculated from companies involved in defence industry promotional events on board Her Majesty's ships, and what is to be the total amount received from the nearly one hundred firms renting space and facilities on Her Majesty's ships engaged in Ocean Wave.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): Participating companies contribute towards the additional cost of mounting defence industry days on board Her Majesty's ships. These costs normally include catering and the hire of equipment, such as awnings, used by the exhibitors. No charge is made for the rental of space. Final receipts from companies taking part in events related to OCEAN WAVE 97 are not known, as details of the companies participating in some of the later events have yet to be finalised; it is estimated that receipts will be in the region of £60,000.
Arrow Anti-ballistic Missile Missiles
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the current relationship between British firms and the Israeli firms producing Arrow anti-ballistic missile missiles and other related systems.
Earl Howe: Any commercial relationships between British and Israeli companies are a matter for the parties concerned.
Ballistic Missile Defence
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether any decisions on the subject of ballistic missile defences were taken in NATO at the December 1996 meeting, and whether any further action is anticipated, and if so what.
Earl Howe: As part of the process of embedding the conclusions of the NATO Senior Defence Group on Proliferation into the established NATO defence planning system, Defence Ministers agreed in December a number of force goals, including one in respect of Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (TBMD) for deployed forces. Alliance work is also in hand to develop programme options for possible common procurement of TBMD for deployed forces.
Theatre Missile Defence
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether any exercises in which British forces take part currently involve theatre missile defence (TMD) issues; if so whether these TMD exercises comply with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (the ABM Treaty), as determined by both the Russian and US signatories to that treaty; and whether that compliance has been confirmed by the relevant British legal advisers; and
Whether it is their view that, when British forces engage in exercises involving theatre missile defence issues, compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (the ABM Treaty) should be left to the United States to determine; if so, whether this view has been discussed with the
- Russian Government; and whether they have informed Parliament of all such activities.
Earl Howe: No exercises in which British forces take part currently involve theatre missile defence issues.
SACLANT: Ballistic Missile Defence Plans
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What ballistic missile defence arrangements are in operation or planned under the authority of the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT); whether British forces assigned to NATO have been or are expected to be involved; and, if so, what scenarios are planned.
Earl Howe: There are no ballistic missile defence arrangements currently in operation, or planned, under the authority of SACLANT. The UK continues to participate in work within NATO on ballistic missile defence. At this stage it is impossible to say what the involvement of British forces assigned to NATO would be in any future ballistic missile defence arrangements.
RAF Menwith Hill
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the statement from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Soames (of 24 February 1997, HCWA 118) that "there are no plans, nor is there any requirement, to renew the arrangements at RAF Menwith Hill" currently under the executive management of the US Army, indicates that these arrangements are to cease, and, if so, when; and, if not, whether it indicates that these arrangements are permanent and Menwith Hill is effectively no longer under sovereign control.
Earl Howe: In 1956 and again in 1976, in connection with US funding arrangements, assurances were given to the US Government that Menwith Hill would be made available to them by HMG for a period of 21 years. The precise nature of these assurances and other administrative arrangements are confidential between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. There is no requirement to review these assurances and RAF Menwith Hill continues to be Crown freehold.
RAF Feltwell
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the airspace checking facilities at RAF Feltwell are under full British control, and whether the United States uses are exclusively for NATO purposes.
Earl Howe: The Deep Space Tracking Facility at RAF Feltwell is under the command of the United States
Air Force Space Command. It is not part of a NATO programme, although Her Majesty's Government and other NATO Governments have access to data collected by the station.Claim against Iraq: Gulf War Environmental Damage
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government: On what grounds they have filed a claim against Iraq for environmental damage caused during the Gulf War, and what agreement within NATO precludes them from the claiming against the United States for the environmental damage from toxic wastes left behind in Holy Loch by the US Forces based there.
Earl Howe: Under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq is liable in international law for any environmental damage which resulted from its illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In accordance with Decision 7 of the Governing Council of the UN Compensation Commission, the Government submitted a claim for compensation in respect of: (a) the UK's contribution to the expenditure by International Maritime Organisation in tackling oil pollution in the Gulf; (b) expenditure on the provision of oil skimmers to assist the Government of Bahrain in defending ecologically sensitive areas against the threat of oil; and (c) expenditure on a survey of bird life in the Gulf.
There is no specific agreement within NATO which precludes claiming against the United States for environmental damage from toxic material. However, the overall volume of such material which has been found at Holy Loch, in the latest survey work, is very small. Only a certain amount of this could be attributed to the United States activities. The debris in the Loch comprises mainly scrap metal and other accumulated rubbish. In addition, a number of wrecks have been identified.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page