|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many (a) EU foreign nationals and (b) non-EU foreign nationals have been employed in her Department in each of the last five years; what vetting procedures are in place for each category of staff; and whether these include liaison with foreign law enforcement agencies. 
Margaret Beckett: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is a British nationals-only employer. However, some foreign nationals are employed in a small number of service provision roles, in line with the requirements laid down in the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 on the employment of aliens. The figures on those employed are:
|Financial year||EU foreign nationals||Non-EU nationals|
The vetting procedures in place for all category of staff employed in the FCO are in line with the policy laid down in the Cabinet Office Manual of Protective Security. The FCO recruit individuals to work in jobs which generally require those individuals to be cleared to security check or developed vetting level. However, in some cases we recruit contracted workers to work at a lower level where counter terrorist check clearance is more appropriate. Where necessary, this will include a check of time spent overseas. The FCO has its own vetting section.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the reason is for the difference between the figures for the European Union's budget for administration costs over the next financial framework in the publication of the United Kingdom presidency proposal on 14 Decemberand the publication of the UK's final proposals on19 December. 
Mr. Hoon: A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 24 April 2006, Official Report, column 860W, on arms exports, on how many occasions since 1997 the Government have received information from (a) their overseas posts and (b) a non-governmental organisation that British defence exports have been diverted that has led to the Government revoking an export licence from a UK defence manufacturer; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells [holding answer 8 May 2006]: Due to the way data are recorded it is not possible to establish whether information leading to revocations originated from overseas posts, or non-governmental organisations.
Reasons for refusals and revocations are listed in each Annual Report for Strategic Exports. A copy of each of the annual reports has been placed in the Library of the House. As all export licence applications are judged rigorously against the Consolidated EU and National Export Licensing Criteria with an assessment made against the risk of diversion by all four Government Departments (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence, Department for International Development) involved in the export licensing process, there are few revocations.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 24 April 2006, Official Report, column 860W, on arms exports, with what frequency reviews of risk assessments specific to an export licence are carried out by the UK Government after an export licence is granted to a UK defence manufacturer; how many staff are engaged in carrying out such reviews with regard to (a) Israel and (b) Saudi Arabia; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells [holding answer 8 May 2006]: All export licences are assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and National Export Licensing Criteria. The risk assessment takes place at the time of application and is carried out by dedicated export licensing teams in all four Departments (Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence, Department for International Development) involved in the export licensing process. Each team is staffed appropriately for existing workloads, but levels may change.
In addition to the process of assessing licences against the criteria and prevailing circumstances, the FCO will review extant licences for all destinations when subsequent reporting from post, media, non-governmental organisations or other sources gives rise to human rights or diversion concerns.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will list the individuals who are not UK citizens who in the period 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2005 were awarded honours; and what (a) the date of announcement, (b) the honour and (c) the reason for the award was in each case. 
Margaret Beckett [holding answer 8 May 2006]: As the information requested is lengthy, I will arrange for the information to be placed in the Library of the House, and will send a copy directly to the hon. Member.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the UK Government have made tothe Indonesian authorities about the situation of Christians in Indonesia. 
Mr. McCartney: We regularly raise human rights issues with the Government of Indonesia, both bilaterally and through the EU. We have made clear our view that freedom of religion is an important component of the democratic life of the country.
Through the EU, we have made representations to the Indonesian Government concerning the death penalty handed down to three Christians convicted of masterminding violence in Central Sulawesi in 2000. On 14 November 2005, as EU presidency, we expressed to the Government of Indonesia the EU's regret at the decision to carry out the executions, and urged the Indonesian government not to do so and to consider the abolition of the death penalty altogether. The current EU presidency, Austria, followed this up with the Government of Indonesia in January in separate meetings with the Minister of Law and Human Rights and the Attorney-General, and in a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The EU presidency raised this again during the EU-Indonesia Ministerial Troika meeting in Vienna on 27 March.
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the possible effects of economic sanctions on Iran on the world economy, with particular reference to the price of oil. 
Dr. Howells: The United Nations Security Council has not yet considered imposing sanctions against Iran, though this cannot be ruled out at some point if Iran continues not to take the steps regarding its nuclear programme that the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors has deemed essential. The effects of any sanctions on the world economy would depend critically on the kinds of measures imposed; at this stage, speculation is premature.
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2006, Official Report, column 304W, on Iran, what assessment she has made of Iranian financial support to Hamas since the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections; and if she will make a statement. 
We remain deeply concerned by Iran's support for groups undermining peace in the Middle East and by President Ahmadinejad's calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. We believe it would not be in the interests of the Palestinian people, nor in the interests
of peace in the region, for the PA to depend on funding from Iran. The PA needs to engage with the whole international community to find a lasting solution to its funding needs on the basis of commitments to recognising the state of Israel, commitment to non-violence and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the roadmap.
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Israel's Security Fence is outside Israel's borders as they existed in 1967; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: In March 2005, the UN Office for Co-ordination for Humanitarian Affairs reported that 20 per cent. of the completed section of the barrier ran along the green line. The remainder of the barrier is routed on Occupied Territory.
We fully recognise Israel's right to self-defence. A barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. But the barrier's route should be on or behind the green line and not on occupied territory. The territory beyond the green line which Israel occupied in June 1967 is occupied territory. We will continue to raise our concerns overthe barrier with the Israeli Government at all levels.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of comments by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the practice of seeking memoranda of understanding regarding the return of deportees to certain countries is fundamentally flawed in several ways. 
Dr. Howells: We respect the views of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, individuals who are not British nationals, and who pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, should not have the right to remain here indefinitely. The Government continue to believe that memoranda of understanding providing for the deportation with assurances of particular individuals enable us to safeguard the rights of individuals being returned in a manner consistent with, and in respect of our international human rights obligations.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights about the use of memoranda of understanding regarding the return of deportees to certain countries. 
Dr. Howells: I met the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 16 February 2006. We discussed, among other issues, the use of memoranda of understanding regarding the return of deportees to certain countries.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances the Government have received in relation to whether countries with which the UK has memoranda of understanding regarding the return of deportees are complying with both the spirit and the letter of the terms of the agreement. 
Dr. Howells: The Government are confident that the countries concerned will abide by the spirit and letter of the memoranda of understanding (MOU) which they have signed. MOUs on deportation with assurances have so far been signed with Libya, Lebanon and Jordan. No deportations have yet been made under the terms of the MOUs. The deportations are subject to the courts.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the Government to monitor the treatment of people sent to countries with which the UK has a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the return of deportees. 
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the decision of the Council of Europe not to develop guidelines for the acceptable use of diplomatic assurances for extraditing people to countries where they might be at risk of torture; and what the implications are of that decision for the UK's use of Memoranda of Understanding. 
Dr. Howells: We have noted the decision of the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Human Rights not to draft a legal instrument on minimum standards for the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of expulsion procedures and, in the framework of the fight against terrorism, in cases where there is a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The decision has no implications for the Government's policy on the use of Memoranda of Understanding for the purpose in question.
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms the EU is considering for the delivery of aid to health and education projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and if he will make a statement. 
Until the Hamas-led government complies with the conditions laid out by the Quartet on 30 January, direct aid to the Palestinian Cabinet and its Ministries will not be possible. The UK government, European Commission and other international partners are, therefore, looking at other ways to support the basic needs of the Palestinian people. A mechanism has not yet been agreed. However, neither the UK government nor the European Community will fund organisations where there is a risk of resources being diverted to terrorism.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) provides health, education and other basic services to Palestinian refugees. The UK and European
Community provide substantial financial support to UNRWA's work, including £15 million from DFID in April this year.
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been provided by the EU to build the institutional fabric of the Palestinian Authority in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Between 2000 and 2004, the European Community (EC) provided £450.3 million in overall assistance to Palestinian administrative areas. In 2004 and 2005 this included a total of £140 million in direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), aimed at building the institutional capacity of the PA and increasing stability by assisting with budget shortfalls. This was in addition to the EC's contribution to humanitarian assistance, including support to Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Until the new Palestinian government complies with the conditions set out by the Quartet on 30 January, direct aid to the Palestinian Cabinet and its Ministries will not be possible. Like the UK, the European Commission is looking at other ways to support the basic needs of the Palestinian people.
Dr. Howells: Nepal has a deplorable human rights record. Both Maoists and security forces have carried out gross abuses, both against combatants and civilians. Our annual Human Rights Report (chapters 2 and 5) covers this in detail. The report can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119526503628
The UK has regularly spoken out against such abuses and has taken a number of measures to reduce them, including providing human rights training, bomb disposal equipment and funding for the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Kathmandu.
Since the beginning of the year we have been deeply troubled by the escalation of violent Maoist attacks, which have resulted in large numbers of deaths and injuries among the Royal Nepalese Army, the police and civilians. We have also been gravely concerned by human rights abuses carried out by the security forces and by the Government's infringements of civil liberties and democratic freedoms.
With our EU partners we condemned all such abuses in a statement on 27 January 2006. In that statement we strongly condemned the escalation of Maoist violence and the Government's use of force to suppress the Nepalese people's fundamental rights. We also underlined the obligation of all parties to fully respect international humanitarian law.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|