| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Thursday, 17th October 2002.
General Commissioners of Income Tax: Cleveland and North Yorkshire Division
Lord Gladwin of Clee asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are their proposals for the amalgamations of divisions of the General Commissioners of Income Tax in Cleveland and North Yorkshire.[HL5996]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): On 1 October 2002, I made an order under section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating divisions in both North Yorkshire and Cleveland as follows. The Hartlepool and Stockton divisions shall be merged into one new division to be called Hartlepool with Stockton; and the Teesside South and Langbaurgh divisions shall be merged into a new division called Teesside South with Langbaurgh. The amalgamation was made at the request of the General Commissioners in all of the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions in the counties of Cleveland and North Yorkshire. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Library of this House.
Extradition
Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they accept the validity, under Article 99, Paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court, of bilateral agreements being sought by the Government of the United States regarding the extradition of potential criminal defendants and their exemption from the requirements of the International Criminal Court.[HL5825]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell on 14 October (Official Report, cols. 592-93).
Zimbabwe: EU Sanctions Policy
Lord Elton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether Zimbabwe's Trade Minister, Samuel Mumbengegwi, was in Brussels on 24 September; whether his presence there at that time was in breach of European Union sanctions policy; and, if not, under what provision of that policy he was admitted.[HL5849]
Baroness Amos: We understand that Mr Mumbengegwi was in Brussels on 24 September. His presence was not in breach of the EU's sanctions policy. The EU's Common Position 2002/145/CFSP imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe specifically allows member states to grant exemptions where travel is justified on grounds of attending meetings of international bodies. Under the terms of the Lome/Cotonou arrangements, Belgium had a legal obligation to grant Mr Mumbengegwi a visa so that he could attend the EU/ACP trade talks in Brussels which took place from 23 to 27 September. The Belgians consulted EU partners on 18 September about the issue of a visa to Mumbengegwi. In doing so, they undertook to attach maximum restrictions to any visa issued to him. We are satisfied that they did so. The visa was restricted to the territory of Belgium (Mumbengegwi was not permitted to travel through the Schengen area), and for a very short period (22 to 29 September).
Lord Elton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What representations they have made to the Government of Belgium about their permitting Zimbabwe's Trade Minister, Samuel Mumbengegwi, to enter Belgium several days ahead of a European Union/African, Caribbean and Pacific meeting convened there for 27 September when European Union sanctions policy allowed him entry only for the purpose of attending that meeting.[HL5850]
Baroness Amos: The EU/ACP meeting was from 23 to 27 September. Our understanding is that the Belgian Government issued Mr Mumbengegwi with a visa from 22 to 29 September. Belgium consulted EU partners prior to issuing the visa, as they are required to do, under the EU's Common Position 2002/145/CFSP. They undertook to attach maximum restrictions to any visa issued to Mr Mumbengegwi. We are satisfied that they did so: the visa was issued for a very short period covering the meeting, and was restricted to the territory of Belgium (Mumbengegwi was not permitted to travel through the Schengen area). No representations have therefore been made.
Lord Elton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider European Union sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe to be effective; if so, what effect they are having on the Government of Zimbabwe; and, if not, what steps they are taking to make sanctions effective.[HL5852]
Baroness Amos: EU sanctions are having an impact. The travel ban bars ZANU(PF) Ministers, politburo members and other key figures in the Mugabe regime from conducting normal business in Europe (for example when ZANU(PF) Local Government Minister, Ignatius Chombo, was refused entry to the UK at Gatwick airport on 5 October). The EU assets freeze has frozen 24 accounts containing funds totalling £123,000 of individual assets in the UK. The sanctions help to increase the regime's moral and political isolation. They have twice been extended
since they were introduced on 18 February 2002. We and our EU partners keep the measures under constant review, with an eye for further extension.Commonwealth: Member States' Constitutions
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Which members of the Commonwealth must refer constitutional change to them for ratification; and, in each case, what type of change is involved.[HL5925]
Baroness Amos: No member state of the Commonwealth need refer any constitutional amendment to the UK Government for ratification as membership of the organisation is confined to sovereign states.
Mandatory Life Sentence Prisoners: ECHR Judgment
Lord Hughes of Woodside asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What procedural changes are being made following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 May in the case of Stafford concerning the release of mandatory life sentence prisoners.[HL6020]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): Mandatory life sentence prisoners who have served the minimum period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence have their cases reviewed periodically by the Parole Board. At present responsibility for their release rests with the Secretary of State. This responsibility cannot be conferred on the Parole Board or any other body without primary legislation.
As an interim measure, the Home Secretary has decided to change the administrative arrangements for the review and release of mandatory life sentence prisoners. These administrative arrangements will apply to all such prisoners whose next Parole Board review begins on or after 1 January 2003. The changes will mean that in most instances these prisoners' cases will be heard initially, as now, by the Parole Board on the papers which will make a provisional recommendation. If prisoners wish to make representations about provisional recommendations it will then be open to them to request an oral hearing before the Parole Board at which they may have legal representation. They will normally receive full disclosure of all material relevant to the question of whether they should be released. They will also be able to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Similarly the Secretary of State may also require an oral hearing of the board in cases where he believes further examination of the evidence is required.
If, at the end of the review process, the Parole Board favours the release of a mandatory life sentence prisoner once the minimum period has been served the
Home Secretary will normally accept such a recommendation.The Stafford judgement affects only the process by which the decision is made on whether to release mandatory life sentence prisoners. It does not relate to the period of detention which such prisoners must serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, or Parole Board reviews that take place before the end of that period. There will usually be no change to the dates set for Parole Board reviews of prisoners who have served that period. Those prisoners serving whole life tariffs do not have their cases referred to the Parole Board.
Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
Lord Lea of Crondall asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What arrangements he has made for the return to Afghanistan of those not in need of international protection.[HL6021]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): A tripartite agreement by the Government, the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was signed on Saturday 12 October 2002 in Kabul following the successful conclusion of negotiations. The agreement provides for return to Afghanistan in a managed and phased manner of those who have been established to have no protection needs. The United Kingdom is fully committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. As part of this it is important that return to Afghanistan is sustainable, and the agreement commits the United Kingdom Government to providing support to those returning, in Afghanistan, to ensure they are able to re-establish themselves in their homeland.
Reserve Forces
Lord Tomlinson asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether members of the Reserve Forces will continue to support operations as part of the campaign against international terrorism.[HL5995]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): With the expiry of the call-out order made last October, a new order has been made to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support military operations in Afghanistan and related operations arising as part of the campaign against international terrorism. The new order is effective until 30 September 2003. Over 500 reservists were called out under the order made last October, of whom over half were called out compulsorily. The reservists are providing an invaluable contribution to the operations and we are most grateful for their continuing commitment and their employers' support.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |