| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Tuesday, 28th January 1997.
Saudi Arabia: Arrest of British Citizens
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many British citizens have been arrested and detained in Saudi Arabia in each of the years 1990 to 1996 inclusive, and in 1997 so far, and in each year how many of those persons have complained to the British Consul about ill-treatment while they were in custody.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey):
| Year | Arrested and detained | Complaints of ill-treatment |
| 1990 | 19 | 3 |
| 1991 | 17 | 2 |
| 1992 | 32 | 2 |
| 1993 | 12 | 0 |
| 1994 | 21 | 5 |
| 1995 | 21 | 3 |
| 1996 | 19 | 2 |
| 1997 | 0 | 0 |
Politico-Military Aspects of Security: Code of Conduct
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, in pursuance of the EU's declared belief that there is a need for Parliamentarians of the participating states to be better familiarised with the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, they will circulate copies of the code, together with the EU statement in Working Group 1 at the review meeting, to all Members of both Houses who deal with foreign affairs.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Copies of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security and the EU Statement of 15th November 1996 to Working Group 1 of the forum for Security Co-operation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why the European Union failed to raise the question of Turkey's non-compliance with the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security in Working Group 1 of the OSCE Review Conference in Vienna in November 1996.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: The purpose of the OSCE Review Conference in Vienna was to review OSCE commitments, discuss the role and relevance of each provision and propose improvements. The EU highlighted several deficiencies in the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. We hope that a proposed high-level conference
on the Code of Conduct will examine in detail the implementation of the code by certain countries and recommend how the code might be better implemented.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, at the proposed high-level conference to make an in-depth review and follow up of the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security in 1997, they will raise the possibility of an OSCE mission to south-east Turkey.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Our priority is to obtain agreement to the high level conference proposed by the EU. We hope it will consider how implementation of the Code of Conduct might be improved. It is too early to consider the details of the agenda. It is the responsibility of the OSCE Permanent Council, rather than the proposed high level conference, to take decisions on the establishment of OSCE missions.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why, in the statement made by Ireland on behalf of the EU, the excessive use of violence in Chechnya and Croatia was deemed a serious breach of Article 36 of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, thus prompting participating states to call on the states concerned to provide clarification and to limit their use of force, while a similar breach of Article 36 in south-east Turkey was overlooked.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: The EU statement in Working Group 1a of the OSCE Review Conference referred to two examples where the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security was invoked in 1995 by participating states to draw attention to breaches in Croatia and Chechnya. In the case of Turkey the code has not been invoked by any participating state over the question of its military actions in south-east Turkey in 1995. However the EU did raise the case of Turkey in the Permanent Council of the OSCE in March 1995.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, bearing in mind that 32 cases involving attacks by the Turkish armed forces on villages in the southeast have been declared admissible by the European Commission of Human Rights, that two have been referred to the Court, and that one (Akduvar & Others v. Turkey, reference 21893/93) was the subject of a decision against Turkey on 16th September 1996, they will raise the failure of Turkey to prosecute any armed forces personnel vested with command authority, in line with Article 31 of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Although we have no current plans to raise this, the EU statement of 15th November 1996 regretted the absence of any prosecutions under paragraph 31 of the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. It is for each individual state to decide whether to prosecute members of its armed forces under paragraph 31 of the code.
European Court of Human Rights: Judicial Appointments
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer given by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 14th January 1997 (WA 20), whether they will publish the proposals put to other member states of the Council of Europe on improvements to the procedure for appointing judges to the New Protocol 11 Court when it comes into existence in 1998-99.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer given on 17th April 1996 (Vol 517, col. WA 70).
We have discussed our proposals with other member states of the Council of Europe. Negotiations are continuing in the Council of Ministers.
Treaty on European Union: Anti-Discrimination Safeguards
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer given by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 16th January 1997 (WA 33), whether they consider that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects the citizens of the European Union against discrimination in employment and the provision of services on the grounds of race, sex, national or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or social origin, whether by the institutions of the European Union or by member states; and, if so, how this protection is provided.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires States Parties to secure the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the convention without discrimination on certain grounds, including some of those referred to by the noble Lord. To the extent that employment and the provision of services are rights guaranteed by the convention, discrimination in the enjoyment of those rights on the grounds set out in Article 14 is prohibited.
Effect is given to the provisions of the convention in member states by their domestic law. Individuals who complain of a breach of their rights by a member state may petition the European Commission of Human Rights. The Union is bound by Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the convention. Accordingly, the institutions of the Union in their legislative and other acts must respect these rights. Further, it has been the consistent practice of the European Court of Justice for many years to apply the convention when issues of Community law raising human rights issues are brought before it.
European and International Anti-Discrimination Legislation: Comparison
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer given by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 16th January 1997 (WA 33), whether they consider that the guarantee of equality before the law and the equal protection of the law without discrimination based on race, sex, national or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or social origin, contained in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is matched by the protection given by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and, if not, what are the activities which are protected by Article 26 of the International Covenant but not protected by Article 14 of the European Convention.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights speak for themselves. It is of course for the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights and for the Human Rights Committee to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further guidance on the meaning of the articles may be derived from the jurisprudence of these bodies.
Privatisations: Management Bids
The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What criteria have to be satisfied by management buy-ins and buy-outs in order to qualify to apply for government assistance.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): It is for vendor departments to decide, case by case, whether to give financial support for the preparation of a buy-out or buy-in bid from existing management where this would add to the competition for the sale of the business concerned.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page