| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chad
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent actions of Janjaweed militias in Chad; and what representations she has made to the Government of Chad protecting refugees. [83296]
Mr.
McCartney [holding answer 6 July 2006]: We are
aware that Chadian rebels and Darfur militia continue to mount
cross-border attacks into Eastern Chad from Darfur, which has led to
the displacement of 50,000 Chadians. We are also aware of reports of
Darfur rebels continuing to be supported by Chad. We are
pressing the Government of Sudan to neutralise and disarm the Janjaweed
and expel foreign fighters from Darfur as soon as possible, as required
under the Darfur Peace Agreement. We are also pressing both Governments
to fulfil their obligations under the Tripoli
Agreement.
While in Chad leading a UN Security Council delegation in early June, our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York ,raised the refugee camps with President Deby and encouraged him to ensure their full protection.
Departmental Publications
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will list in date order (a) Green and (b) White Papers produced by her Department since October 2005. [81300]
Mr. Hoon: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has produced the following non-treaty Command Papers since October 2005:
Global Opportunities Fund, Annual Report 2004/05, Cm 6665, 12 October 2005;
Annual Performance Report 2005, Cm 6709, 14 December 2005;
52 Annual Report of the Marshall Aid Commission, Year Ending 30 September 2005, Cm 6716, 19 January 2006;
Prospects for the EU in 2005 and the retrospective of the UK’s Presidency of the EU, 1 July to 31 December 2005, Cm 6735, 31 January 2006;
Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong, July—December 2005, Cm 6751, 1 March 2006;
Fiftieth Annual Report of the Foreign Compensation Commission for the Financial Year Ended 31 March 2005, Cm 6778, 4 May 2006;
Active Diplomacy for a Changing World, the UK’s International Priorities, Cm 6762, 28 March 2006;
First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, Annual Report on Human Rights 2005, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 6774, 2 May 2006;
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Departmental Report 1 April 2005—31 March 2006, Cm 6823, 8 May 2006;
Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2005/06, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2004-05, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 6791, 22 May 2006; and
Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2005/06, Public Diplomacy, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 6840, 7 June 2006.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what draft Bills have been produced by her Department since October 2005; how many were (a) examined and (b) are planned to be examined by (i) a departmental Select Committee and (ii) a Joint Committee; which draft Bills are still to be produced by her Department; when each is expected to be published; how many clauses each has; and if she will make a statement. [81301]
Mr. Hoon: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not produced any draft Bills since October 2005.
Announcements on future legislation and future draft legislation which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny will be indicated in Her Majesty the Queen’s Speech.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what her practice is regarding meeting, discussing and taking into account the views and opinions of (a) private individuals and (b) representatives of organisations when drawing up and framing legislation to be introduced by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [81302]
Margaret Beckett: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is not a Department with a heavy legislative programme. Subject to our international obligations, our practice is to seek a full range of views when drawing up and framing legislation. Formal and informal consultation is a key part of the policy making process. The FCO holds regular meetings with representatives of the principal stakeholder groups for our policy areas and with relevant experts. Organisations and individuals can also contribute to the Department’s formal consultations, which abide by the Code of Conduct on Consultation. Known stakeholders are alerted to the fact that a formal consultation is taking place. As required by the code, the Department gives feedback on the response received and on how the consultation process influenced the policy decision.
Consultation documents inviting comment are circulated through direct contact with appropriate organisations and published on the FCO website:
http://vvww.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1017170970560
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will list the Deposited Papers placed in the Library by her Department since 2000; and when they were published. [81304]
Mr. Hoon: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has placed 610 items in the Library of the House since 2000. The Library keeps a list of the documents including their date of deposit which I will forward to the hon. Member.
Detainees (Inter-state Transfers)
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the Council of Europe’s report on alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states; and what response she has made to the findings of the report at paragraph 10.5 in relation to the case of Benyam Mohammed Al Habashi. [83564]
Dr. Howells: Dick Marty’s report of 7 June entitled “Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe Member States” contains no new evidence in respect of the UK.
In the case of Benyam Mohammed Al Habashi, he was interviewed once by a member of the UK Security Services in Karachi in 2002, but the Security Services had no role in his capture in or transfer from Pakistan.
Drugs
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime regarding drug production and trafficking in (a) Pakistan and (b) Iran; and what assessment she has made of the effects of the level of production on the National Drugs Control Strategy in Afghanistan. [83217]
Mr. McCartney: Pakistan and Iran are major drug trafficking transit countries to Europe. Production in these countries is much less significant than in Afghanistan. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drugs Report of 2006 quotes 2,400 hectares of opium cultivated in Pakistan compared to 104,000 in Afghanistan in 2005. Iran cultivation figures do not feature. Regional co-operation is, however, an important element of the Government of Afghanistan's National Drug Control Strategy and efforts are being made to improve information sharing and develop closer working relationships with the neighbours with particular respect to border control, law enforcement and judicial co-operation. This is vital in order to crack down on drug trafficking and ensure that cultivation does not move across Afghanistan's borders into neighbouring countries. In 2005 the UK funded £1.55 million worth of regional projects, of which £618,000 was contributed to the UNODC Iran integrated border management project on the Iran/Afghan border. In 2006 we are funding £1 million of regional projects of which £400,000 is allocated to UNODC regional precursor control projects.
The UK has regular dialogue with the UNODC on drug trafficking in Pakistan and Iran. This is undertaken both on a multilateral and bilateral level. On the multilateral level, the UK is a strong supporter of the UNODC-managed Paris Pact process, a mechanism to co-ordinate action by all countries affected by the Afghan opiate trade, and plays a high profile role in these meetings. This provides an opportunity to work with priority transit countries to combat the trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan to Europe. At the Islamabad and Tehran Paris Pact meetings, March and September 2005 respectively, the UK pressed both UNODC and the international donor community to support our regional counter narcotics priorities. These are to develop operational cross border liaison, regional precursor control, and law enforcement training and equipment for Pakistan, Iran and Central Asian Republics bordering Afghanistan.
On the bilateral level, UNODC recognise that UK funding in support of UNODC programmes in Iran and Pakistan has been very helpful in allowing us jointly to address a range of counter narcotics issues. Our Missions in Tehran and Islamabad enjoy good relations and regular dialogue with the local UNODC offices. The UK has also played an active role in the development of a UNODC regional strategy for the countries along Afghan drug trafficking routes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate (a) she and (b) the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has made of the size of the Afghan poppy crop in 2006. [83282]
Dr. Howells: It is too early to assess overall levels of cultivation in 2006, but a significant increase seems likely following last year's 21 per cent. fall. This is worrying and due in part to a substantial increase in planting in the more lawless south, including Helmand Province. We will know this year's cultivation figures when the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime publishes their annual opium poppy survey in the autumn. There are some signs, however, that last year's reductions are likely to be sustained in areas where access to governance, security and development has improved. Sustainable drug elimination strategies take time, particularly when the challenges are as severe as they are in Afghanistan. The UK believes that the approach set out in the Government of Afghanistan's newly updated National Drug Control Strategy represents the best means of tackling the problem.
EU Veto
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which areas the UK’s veto in EU matters has been relinquished by means other than a treaty since 1997. [81901]
Mr. Hoon: Outside the amendment of the EU Treaties, there are four passerelle provisions in the current treaties which allow changes from unanimity in voting rules. They are article 42, treaty on European Union, and articles 67(2), 137(2) and 175(2), treaty establishing the European Community. Only the passerelle provision in article 67(2) has been activated to change the voting in certain areas of title IV from unanimity to co-decision and qualified majority voting. But it is for the UK to decide on a case by case basis whether or not it wishes to opt in to any measure adopted in such an area, as set out in the protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the treaty of Amsterdam.
Foreign Affairs Committee
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 27 June 2006, Official Report, column 352W, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, what estimate she has made of the cost of answering the question; and if she will make a statement. [82636]
Mr. Hoon: We did not make a precise estimate of the cost of answering the hon. Member’s question. The answer I gave on 27 June 2006, Official Report, column 352W, was based on the fact that it was evident that to provide the information in the form requested would exceed the currently agreed threshold for answering hon. Members’ written questions.
Guantanamo Bay
Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether she plans to take action in response to the recent British Medical Association motion calling on the Government to send a team of physicians to Guantanamo Bay to seek unfettered access to detainees. [83426]
Dr. Howells: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been visiting detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002. Medical personnel are included in each ICRC visiting team. We do not see the case at the moment for a visit by a specifically British team, as suggested by the British Medical Association.
Human Cloning
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom voted against the declaration on human cloning at the United Nations General Assembly; which countries (a) voted in favour, (b) voted against and (c) abstained on the resolution; if she will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom delegate's voting instructions on this resolution; what discussions she had with the United States delegation at the United Nations about this resolution; whom she consulted before opposing this resolution; what representations she received from (i) individuals and (ii) organisations in support of the resolution; and if she will make a statement. [83046]
Mr. McCartney: The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning is non-binding and has no legal status, but the UK voted against it because it calls on states to prohibit all forms of human cloning. This is totally unacceptable to the Government, which strongly supports stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research involving the use of cloning technology. The Government's position on the declaration was broadly supported in the House during an adjournment debate on stem cell research on 7 March 2005, Official Report, columns 1357-70, the evening before the adoption of the declaration.
The declaration was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 34 against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Morocco, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Zambia.
Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom.
Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
The UK delegation voted against the declaration in accordance with instructions from the Government, which covered a range of options for possible votes on different draft resolutions or motions. Discussions took place with various UN Member States, including the US. We consulted a range of Departments with an interest in the issue, including the Department of Health. We received representations in support of and against the declaration from several interested non-governmental organisations and individuals.
India
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will make representations to the Indian Government calling for Dalit Christians to be enumerated among the scheduled castes; and if she will make a statement. [80777]
Dr. Howells: Issues relating to scheduled castes are, of course, a matter for the Indian Government to take forward. However, our high commission in New Delhi has previously raised this issue with the appropriate Indian authorities in response to legitimate UK public and parliamentary interest.
We are aware from media reports that a petition was filed in February 2005 by the Centre for Public Interest with the Indian Supreme Court to argue that the provision to exclude Dalits who convert to Christianity and Islam from the scheduled castes is unconstitutional. This case is now due to be heard during July. We are awaiting the court’s decision before deciding the nature of any further representations. Our high commission in New Delhi is continuing to monitor the situation closely.
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations she has made to the Indian Government concerning the anti-conversion legislation enacted in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chattisgurh, Gujarat and Rajasthan states; and if she will make a statement. [83894]
Dr. Howells: Issues relating to anti-conversion legislation are, of course, internal matters for the Indian authorities to take forward. However, officials from our high commission in New Delhi have previously raised this with the appropriate Indian authorities in response to legitimate UK public and parliamentary interest, with specific reference to the State of Rajasthan. This was raised when they called on the Chair of the National Commission for Minorities in April and the Ministry of Minorities Affairs in June.
Although the Rajasthan legislative assembly approved the Freedom of Religion Bill in April, we understand that the State Governor refused to sign the Bill when it was presented to her on 19 May and when it was re-sent to her on 13 June.
To date, nobody has raised with us specific cases of abuse, where anti-conversion legislation already in place has been used to prevent someone from willingly changing their religion. However, we and EU partners will continue to follow closely developments in states where this legislation already exists.
Iran
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Iran has provided a timetable for the resolution of outstanding issues relating to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, as indicated in the Director General's report on the Implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran of 8 June 2006. [81732]
Margaret Beckett: As far as we are aware, Iran has provided no such timetable to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps she is taking towards ensuring that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme does not progress to a stage whereby it will have produced enough highly enriched uranium to create a nuclear device. [83137]
Dr. Howells: We remain deeply concerned that, despite repeated requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council, Iran is continuing uranium enrichment related and reprocessing activities that will enable it to develop the capability to produce fissile material suitable for use in nuclear weapons. In addition, we are concerned that, as the IAEA Director General, Dr. Mohammed El-Baradei, describes in his latest report, Iran is not co-operating fully with the IAEA and there are still many outstanding issues that Iran needs to resolve to the IAEA’s satisfaction.
On 1 June, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her French, German, US, Russian and Chinese colleagues and Javier Solana, EU High Representative, agreed to propose a way forward that would give Iran everything it needs to develop a modern civil nuclear power industry and bring Iran far-reaching political and economic benefits, while meeting international concerns. To create conditions for talks to resume, Iran should reinstate its suspension of enrichment related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA Board; we would then suspend action in the Security Council. We hope that Iran will take the positive path offered. Ministers agreed on 1 June that if Iran decides not to engage in negotiation, further action will be necessary in the Security Council.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |