| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Dec 2005 : Column 1179W—continued
Ethiopia/Eritrea
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are planning to take to respond to the tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and what action it plans to take to support the United Nations Security Council resolution imposing economic sanctions on the two nations if they do not return to the conditions of the peace plan signed in 2000. [33795]
Ian Pearson:
We remain concerned at the continuing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea over their disputed border. We continue to underline to both parties that there must be no return to war; that the
6 Dec 2005 : Column 1180W
decision of the Boundary Commission is final and binding, and must be implemented; and that they should engage in dialogue on all the issues that divide them.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1640 (2005) allows Ethiopia and Eritrea 30 days to respond to the demands made of them in the resolution to withdraw troops from the border area, and for Eritrea to lift the ban on UN helicopter flights. After that period, the Security Council will consider imposing sanctions in the form of an arms embargo. We will continue to assess how an arms embargo would affect the situation, including the wider impact of an embargo, as the situation develops. We are working closely with UN and Security Council partners to find a way forward for this problem. The use of economic sanctions has not been specifically raised by Security Council members and we believe this action is unlikely to be proposed.
European Court of Human Rights
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions can be employed to ensure member states of the Council of Europe implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. [33723]
Mr. Douglas Alexander: As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), on 14 October 2005, Official Report, column 642W, there are several courses of action available to the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers can adopt interim resolutions expressing concern with respect to the slow or non-execution of a judgment. Peer pressure is increased to encourage rapid compliance with the court's judgment. In the vast majority of cases, this is sufficient to ensure compliance.
At the request of the Committee of Ministers, the Chairman in Office can write to or hold meetings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the respondent state.
The ultimate measure available to the Committee of Ministers is recourse to article 8 of the Council of Europe's statute: suspension of voting rights in the Committee of Ministers, or even expulsion from the organisation. But this is an extreme measure, which would prove counter-productive in most cases.
In order to strengthen the measures available, protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights empowers the Committee of Ministers to bring infringement proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights against a state that refuses to abide by a judgment. We are urging all member states of the Council of Europe to ratify the protocol as soon as possible, as the UK has done, so that it can enter into force.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the member countries of the Council of Europe which are failing to comply with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement on the UK Government's policy in respect of such failure to comply. [33725]
6 Dec 2005 : Column 1181W
Mr. Douglas Alexander: The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers is currently supervising the execution of judgments against 41 member states of the Council of Europe. They are:
Responsibility for supervising the execution of judgments lies with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and the UK works through the Committee of Ministers (where the UK is represented) to encourage full implementation of the court's judgments.
Former Residence (Cape Town)
Mr. Gray:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the former residence of the British high commissioner in Cape Town is for sale; [34935]
6 Dec 2005 : Column 1182W
(2) what the open market value is of the former residence of the British high commissioner at Upper Hillwood Road, Bishopscourt, Cape Town; [34991]
(3) what the total cost was of the repair and refurbishment of the Cape Town residence of the British high commissioner after the fire in 1999; and what proportion of the cost was met by (a) the high commission, (b) the Government and (c) third parties. [34992]
Ian Pearson: The Cape Town Residence of the British high commissioner is not in the sales programme. The open market value of the property when it was last valued in June 2005 was £1.57 million (Rand 19 million). The final account value for repair and refurnishing the Residence after the 1999 fire amounted to some £700,000. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office successfully claimed against third parties involved, receiving some £530,000 in compensation.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's rules are for the sale of former residences of British high commissioners overseas; and if he will make a statement. [34993]
Ian Pearson: I refer the hon. Member to the discussion of estate issues in the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–04 (Cm 6415), which is available in the Library of the House. Where properties are under-performing or unsuitable, selling and reinvesting is part of normal estate business.
Morocco-Spain Tunnel
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding is being provided by the EU to build a tunnel between Morocco and Spain; and if he will make a statement. [35300]
Mr. Douglas Alexander: No EU funding has been allocated to this project.
UK Overseas Posts (Disabled Access)
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of providing access for disabled people to all UK overseas posts. [34373]
Ian Pearson: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In all new Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) building projects, provision is made in the overall budget to ensure full accessibility to people with disabilities, both members of the public and FCO staff. In major refurbishment of existing buildings, improvements to access are made whenever possible, and provision made in the overall budget.
In addition, overseas posts are aware of their responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act Part III and have been instructed to review disabled access, make information about accessibility available and, where possible, make improvements. Where access is limited, posts seek alternative ways of providing accessible services.
6 Dec 2005 : Column 1183W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |