---

European Union (Frontier Controls)

5. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with his European counterparts about frontier controls within the European Union. [9237]

Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference has discussed possible developments of justice and home affairs on a number of occasions. We have made it clear that we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in addition to the need to block entry to this country by drug dealers, terrorists and other undesirable elements, we need to control the migration from eastern Europe and beyond by people who are motivated by economic factors rather than genuinely seeking asylum? Will he assure the House that, during the IGC, he and his Home Office colleagues will continue to resist vigorously any pressure to sign up to the Schengen treaty, accession to which would hopelessly compromise our existing controls and would, I suggest, put the security of this country at risk?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give my hon. Friend that unqualified assurance. We have no intention of acceding to the Schengen controls. Our commitments under the single market relate to the free movement of EU citizens, and it is crucial for us to maintain controls as regards citizens from third countries. We have every intention of maintaining those controls in the years to come.

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not agree to anything within the EU

15 Jan 1997 : Column 310

that will ensure that the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is treated any differently--apart from customs union matters--from the frontiers between Spain and Portugal and between Spain and France?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that this is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman may have seen press reports that suggest that the Spanish are considering restricting the use of Gibraltar passports, but we have made it clear that that would be totally unacceptable. The general response from the Spanish has been encouraging, and I expect a formal reply to our representations in the near future. We will study that reply carefully.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we will resist all the pressure from a number of our more federally minded European partners to make all borders come down and to have one immigration policy? Does he think that it is a mockery for a political party that espouses being tough on borders and tough on immigration policy then to agree quietly to get rid of all our immigration policies by having a pan-European one, as is happening with the Labour party?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is a particular problem for those who say that they do not believe in any permanent opt-outs. The United Kingdom has opted out of controls such as the Schengen policy. If one believes that opt-outs are purely temporary, it is simply a question of when one abandons frontier controls--not a question of the principle. So far as the Government are concerned, these frontier controls are permanent and will not be removed.

Council of Ministers Secretariat

6. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the current secretariat of the Council of Ministers and associated staff, engaged in political co-operation within the European Union, were in post in December; and what estimates he has made of the staff consequences arising from adopting recent proposals in respect of extending activity relating to political co-operation. [9238]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Two thousand, five hundred and twenty-nine staff were employed to the Council secretariat in 1996. The task of the secretariat is to help the presidency in administering and co-ordinating the work of the Council of Ministers in all its functions. The secretariat has informed us that 29 of these people work directly on common foreign and security policy. It is not yet possible to assess changes to the secretariat after the IGC is concluded.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the proposals from the Irish presidency for consideration at the revision of the treaty at Amsterdam include specific proposals for enhancing the profile of the Secretary-General in re foreign and security policy matters, increasing planning staff and giving the presidency powers of diplomatic representation, supported principally by the secretariat and the Commission, which would thereby and of their own account have increased diplomatic powers in third

15 Jan 1997 : Column 311

countries? Would that not be the end of co-operation and the development of a pan-European Foreign Office in its own right?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has a point in terms of the intentions of some of our European Union colleagues. Perhaps it would be worth while if I explained briefly what our intentions were and what we have proposed, because there is great support within the Union for the British proposal.

The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's first question concerned the secretariat. Our proposal is to reinforce the planning cell, so that when there are differences of view between different parts of the Union it is because of a difference of interest--making it reasonable to exercise the veto and withhold consensus--rather than of analysis. Our proposal would add about five or six people to the current foreign service planning personnel.

On representation, we have made it very clear that so-called Monsieur or Madame Pesc should be entirely subordinate to the Council and therefore remain within the control of the nation states; as such, it will not undermine co-operation.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important aspect of political co-operation is that agreements once made should be rapidly implemented? Can he therefore tell us what steps the Government have taken to ratify the Europe-Israel trade agreement and what progress is being made among our partner countries to take the same action?

Mr. Davis: The trading provisions came into effect on 1 January last year, and are currently being taken forward.

Legislative Council

8. Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take the Chinese Government's decision to abolish the Hong Kong Legislative Council to the International Court of Justice and the Security Council. [9240]

Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement on the provisional legislature that I issued on 20 December 1996, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. I said that we would be willing to join China in submitting the question of a provisional legislature to independent legal settlement, for example to the International Court of Justice. The Chinese Government have not accepted that proposal.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for a serious, if belated, answer to a serious question. Does he agree that the Chinese decision to abolish the Legislative Council is contradictory and damaging to the joint declaration and to democracy in Hong Kong? That decision derails the through train of democracy, allows the Chinese to impose their own terms on franchises and qualifications for standing and bodes ill for an easy transition. Will he raise the matter in every available forum of world opinion and say that, if the Chinese do not agree, as he said in his November statement, to put it to the international court, they must have something to hide, and that is unacceptable?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The requirements of the joint declaration and the Basic Law

15 Jan 1997 : Column 312

envisage an elected Legislative Council, and I do not believe that it can be seriously proposed that a hand-picked electorate of 400--the body that chose the provisional legislature--in any way meets those requirements. We have made our views clear, and the Democratic party in Hong Kong has welcomed the British Government's response to the Chinese action. Good statements have been made by the United States and several other countries, and the Chinese can be in no doubt about the serious view of their action taken not only by the United Kingdom but by the international community.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

9. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure maximum compliance with human rights in other Commonwealth countries. [9241]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We support fully the Harare declaration and the Millbrook action plan.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Government be resolute and strong at the forthcoming 52nd United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva in a few weeks to secure a clear resolution about reinstating human rights in Nigeria, and do they consider the Amnesty 10-point programme an acceptable basis for bringing Nigeria back into line in the family of civilised nations in the Commonwealth?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The Government are doing everything they can to bring Nigeria back into line. The conduct of the Nigerian Government is currently wholly unacceptable. The United Nations forum, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is one of the ways in which we shall seek to bring them back into line.

We also fully support the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which recently visited Nigeria and which has made four specific proposals. It recommended the prompt restoration of accountable civilian government, the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis, who face the same charges as Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates faced, and a review of prison conditions. Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to ensure that those conditions are fulfilled.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that human rights are best guaranteed by the election of democratic Governments, not only in the Commonwealth but elsewhere in the world, particularly in the middle east? Does he agree that, if there were democratic Governments in the middle east--

Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister make it clear to the Government of Jamaica that there is widespread revulsion in the House--as shown by large numbers of signatures on early-day motions--at the continual suppression of human rights in Jamaica by the violation of the rulings of

15 Jan 1997 : Column 313

the judicial committee of the Privy Council that prisoners should not be held on death row for more than five years? That is evidenced by the harsh and brutal treatment of prisoners, the inhuman conditions in which they are kept and the denial to them of access to medical attention. Is it not hypocritical of the Jamaican Government to sign British Commonwealth declarations about human rights everywhere else, but to suppress human rights in Jamaica?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that conditions in Jamaican prisons are unacceptable. No prisoner, either in Jamaica or elsewhere, should be kept on death row any longer than is absolutely necessary. All judicial processes to review a sentence of death should happen speedily. We shall continue to press the Jamaican Government on those matters.

---