|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
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.
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. 
Mr. Hoon: We did not make a precise estimate of the cost of answering the hon. Members 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.
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. 
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.
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. 
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, who 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.
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.
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. 
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 courts 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. 
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.
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. 
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps she is taking towards ensuring that Irans uranium enrichment programme does not progress to a stage whereby it will have produced enough highly enriched uranium to create a nuclear device. 
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 IAEAs 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.
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with (a) her (i) Iraqi, (ii) US and (iii) EU counterparts and (b) the UN on the establishment of a UN International Compact to support the development of a framework for increased international assistance to Iraq; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells [holding answer 6 July 2006]: The Prime Minister of Iraq has written to the UK and other international partners including the UN, EC, US requesting support for an International Compact. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 June where the Iraqi Foreign Minister discussed with EU Foreign Ministers the need for increased international engagement with Iraq through a compact. At the UN on 19 June the Iraqi Foreign Minister asked for support to create an International Compact for Iraq and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated the UK would help with the Compact when she saw him as he returned from New York. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the Compact with G8 Foreign Ministers, including the US, at their recent meeting and called on them to support the Compact as Iraqi and UN ideas emerge. This was reflected in the supportive G8 final statement of 29 June. The full text of this statement can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth website at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/G8FMChairmanStatememt290606.pdf.
We support wider international engagement in Iraq through the Compact and urge the international community to do the same. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed our commitment to this process.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications under the Geneva Conventions of the targeting by Israel of civilian facilities and infrastructure in Gaza during the military incursions commenced by Israel on 27 June 2006; and what representations she has made to the Government of Israel on the subject. 
Dr. Howells: We are very concerned at the increased tension between Israel and the Palestinians. We are opposed to the targeting of civilian facilities and call upon Israel to respect international law and, in particular, the requirement of proportionality and the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. We continue to urge both parties to act with restraint and end the current cycle of violence, which only make the prospect of a negotiated, peaceful resolution more distant.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the current situation with Israeli Foreign Minister Livni and Palestinian President Abbas on 6 July. On 29 June, the Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv raised our concerns about the loss of electricity and water supplies with the Israel Defence Force.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations she is making to the Government of Israel to persuade them to secure the disarmament of unofficial Israeli militia groups of settlers; and on what occasion the last representations were made. 
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with the Japanese Government in the last six months concerning the imprisoned UK citizen, Nick Baker. 
Mr. McCartney: Consular officials from our embassy in Tokyo continue to raise Nick Bakers case with the Japanese authorities as appropriate; most recently with the Ministry of Justice on 17 May 2006. Consular officials have also raised various concerns about Mr. Bakers welfare with the prison authorities.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions an (a) individual and (b) organisation has applied for a judicial review of decisions of her Department in each year since 1997; and what the outcome was of each case where proceedings have been completed. 
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the British objectives were for the High Level Political Meeting of the Krakow Proliferation Security Initiative; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. McCartney: The UK had three main objectives for the High Level Political Meeting of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), all of which were met. First, we strengthened further the initiative through endorsement of the PSI Statement of Interdiction Principles by more countries. We were pleased to welcome around a dozen states to their first PSI meeting, following a global lobbying campaign by the UK and other PSI partners. Secondly, we shared information, best practice and lessons learned from previous PSI activities. This was achieved through a series of presentations and panel discussions on topics such as exercise planning, legal considerations and industry outreach. Thirdly, we secured agreement on the strategic direction of the initiative, in particular emphasising the importance of ensuring all PSI participating states can achieve the full benefits of involvement in the initiative.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Bills sponsored by her Department are still planned to be introduced during the current Session; and when, and into which House, each will be introduced. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|