(10 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Chope. Last October, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published its annual critique of the human rights work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Office responded in December, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the report.
In today’s unpredictable world, striking the right balance between protecting our national interests and holding true to our values, on domestic shores as well as abroad, is a tough call, but what is certain is that we live in an age of unparalleled transparency and instant global dissemination of news and analysis. To win an argument credibly in this fast-paced environment, consistency is key. The Foreign Secretary’s speech to the Royal United Services Institute on human rights and counter-terrorism last year sums up that dichotomy. He talked of sharing intelligence with countries that do not always share our values, to keep our citizens safe, but added that Britain must build a series of
“justice and human rights partnerships”
with such countries. That is a better alternative than boycotting regimes that are on a very different page where human rights and law enforcement are concerned.
We must not underestimate Ministers’ accountability to Parliament and the wider public. That is particularly true in the case of deportation with assurances, when we collaborate with countries that have little regard for human rights. Human rights organisations have raised concerns that assurances from countries where torture is widespread are inherently unreliable. David Mepham of Human Rights Watch, which published an excellent report this week providing summaries of principal human rights concerns in more than 90 countries worldwide, described the system as “lacking in credibility”.
We think that the provisions for monitoring the welfare of those returned under deportation with assurances, or DWA, arrangements could be strengthened. Some of the bodies supposed to be carrying out that monitoring do not instil universal confidence, such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. The UK Court of Appeal found that it could not be trusted to report deliberate breaches by the Ethiopian Government, yet the Foreign Office says in its response that it is satisfied that the commission is fit for purpose. With regard to other countries, our agreement with Algeria makes no provision for formal post-return monitoring; British embassy staff do it. We want to be sure that embassy staff have the training that they need, and I am pleased that the Government have given that reassurance in their response.
We risk the accusation of double standards if we allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint in developing and exporting equipment that has the capacity to inhibit free speech on the internet. Two years ago, Amnesty International highlighted credible allegations that businesses were supplying technology to countries that were stifling free speech, including Egypt, Libya, China and Iran. We welcome the Government’s response, which confirms that they are working towards an internationally agreed and implemented list of controlled equipment and guidance for officials in carrying out due diligence when developing Government-led commercial and security relationships overseas. Working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Foreign Office should be ready to intervene by controlling exports if there is obvious potential for abuse by end users.
In that spirit of greater accountability, we welcome the Foreign Office’s decision to define more clearly the criteria for countries of concern. Its authoritative analysis of conditions in those countries is to be congratulated, but the Committee questions why the extent of our engagement in a particular country, or the impact of the human rights situation there on our interests, should be regarded as factors in evaluating human rights standards.
Our report considers more closely three countries on the list: Sri Lanka, Burma and Russia. Sri Lanka courted particular controversy as the venue for the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended, as well as His Royal Highness Prince Charles. The Committee felt that the previous Government displayed a striking lack of consistency in 2009 by objecting to the proposal that Sri Lanka might host the 2011 meetings on human rights grounds but not to the proposal that it might host the 2013 meetings. That appears timid.
The Foreign Office should have taken a more principled stance in 2009 and, to be fair to my Opposition colleagues, a more robust stand after 2011. However, in the circumstances, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to attend, but only on the condition that he press the authorities relentlessly on human rights and seek assurances that people who spoke out on human rights were not harassed by security forces. Will the Minister confirm that assurances were indeed given and observed?
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Having spoken about Sri Lanka, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reflect a little on the situation in Burma?
Sir Richard Ottaway
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will come to Burma shortly.
More disappointing was the Government’s answer to the question whether they still hold the view that there is no substantiated evidence of Sri Lankans returned home from the UK being tortured or maltreated. Simply stating that the Foreign Office is not aware of any new evidence since the original answer was submitted ducks the issue. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “the original answer”? Can he give us an assurance about cases that occurred before that time?
I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Burma, like Sri Lanka, attracted widespread media coverage following the historic visit of Aung San Suu Kyi in summer 2012. We believe that the EU’s decision to lift economic sanctions the following year was the right one, given the remarkable progress made in that country. However, that comes with a caveat.
The UK should not hesitate to advocate the reimposition of sanctions if undertakings on human rights are not followed through. Serious reservations remain about the continued incarceration of political prisoners and the failure to bring those responsible for intercommunal violence to justice. Will the Minister update us on the release of political prisoners and accountability for the shocking crimes in Rakhine state?
On Russia, with less than a month to go before the 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi, the Committee, which did not support a boycott, hopes that the UK will use the occasion as a platform for voicing concerns about human rights abuses. The recent release of high-profile prisoners in Russia, including Pussy Riot, the Greenpeace activists and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, suggests that Russia is receptive—cynically, perhaps—to cases that damage its reputation internationally. Khodorkovsky said himself that his release could not symbolise that there were no political prisoners left in Russia, as much of the Government’s crackdown on human rights continues unabated. I welcome the decision this morning to release Platon Lebedev, but the financial claim of 17.5 million roubles against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev effectively blocks their return to Russia.
It is clear to us, from Russia’s example in particular, that public opinion matters, and public opinion is informed largely by the media through broadcasts and the internet. As we on the Committee have pointed out several times, the BBC World Service makes a huge contribution to the projection of the UK’s values and strengths around the globe, which is why the evidence presented to us about levels of disruption of media freedom not seen since the cold war is extremely worrying.
Of the 47 countries examined by Freedom House in its survey on internet freedom, 20 had experienced a negative trajectory since January 2011. Bahrain, Pakistan and Ethiopia showed the greatest declines, but the countries making the most comprehensive efforts to frustrate the BBC World Service’s overseas broadcasts were Iran and China. We believe that it would be astonishing if the services were to be diminished because of a lack of resources to protect broadcasts from interference. The BBC says that it will review the plans once the licence fee funding begins.
Providers of satellite services also have an interest: if they cannot provide a service to the broadcaster they risk losing out financially. In our opinion, satellite providers, and not only those directly affected by jamming, should invest in the necessary technology. Given that national interests are at stake, the Government should be encouraging them to do so.
I would like to end on a high note. The championing of women’s rights across the globe is a major success story for the British Government. We join others in commending the Foreign Secretary for driving the prevention of sexual violence in conflict initiative and for committing millions to fund human rights projects last year. We strongly welcome the team of UK experts ready to be deployed in conflict areas. We support their work in helping to build national capacity in investigating allegations of sexual violence and gathering evidence to help victims. We are pleased that the Government say they will encourage other countries to contribute personnel and funding as demand increases.
However, legislation in Afghanistan outlawing violence against women is not a big step forward if it is not implemented. As a Committee, we are not as optimistic as the Foreign Office that progress will be made once international security assistance force troops have withdrawn. We believe that a reversal is possible. The emphasis should now be on ensuring that the gains made are not reversed.
Safeguarding democracy and human rights is a thread that runs through every aspect of this country’s external relations, whether political, humanitarian, commercial, or security-based. The Foreign Office is doing an excellent job in trying circumstances, whether it is communicating its values through the media, standing up for women’s rights internationally or ensuring that UK companies incorporate human rights into their deals.
However, with every step that the Foreign Office makes in the right direction, increasingly sophisticated threats are pushing the other way. Just like viruses that become resistant to antibiotics, terrorists are constantly finding ways to undermine safeguards that we put in place to keep our people from harm. As the challenges grow tougher, the Foreign Office would do well to remember the sentiment expressed by our Foreign Secretary in his RUSI address: through the good times and the bad times, we must never lose sight of our values.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) on his speech and on his work as Chair of our Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree with him on some things and, as he will not be surprised to hear, disagree on others.
I chair the all-party parliamentary human rights group, which closely monitors and works with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a number of related issues. I welcome the many programmes and policies that the FCO continues to undertake around the world to protect and promote human rights, including fundamental political and civil rights, good governance, the rule of law and accountability for violations, as well as the protection of women’s rights, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and minority rights.
The first thing I would like to say is that despite the FCO’s having previously agreed with the Foreign Affairs Committee that evaluation is important, the 2012 FCO human rights report does not appear to reflect a more analytical approach. Overall, I feel that human rights reports are too focused on detailing activities being undertaken or funded by the FCO in the field of human rights and reciting current priorities, without going that step further. I would particularly like to see more evaluation of what has worked in terms of policies and programmes, and of how and why they have worked.
For instance, the FCO details its capacity-building programme in countries and with Government institutions whose human rights records are wanting—for example, in relation to police training in Afghanistan; police training in Baghdad to develop a more effective police response to incidents involving violence against women; the multi-year UK-led programme to strengthen capacity to tackle terrorism through the criminal justice system in Pakistan; and the police and prison reform project in Uzbekistan. It would be useful to know what precise impact those projects have had in those countries.
I would also like the FCO to do more to explain what policies and measures it is adopting to prevent potential future crises, particularly in countries where there are long-standing human rights violations that are not being addressed. Many are particularly concerned about the situation in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, central Asia and Eritrea becoming much worse. I think the FCO should, in the first instance, look at whether lessons can be learned from the fall-out from the Arab spring and explore whether transition and consolidation activities and strategies are sufficiently incorporated in country business plans. Are there any lessons to be learned from the Arab spring about how the UK deals with authoritarian regimes more generally?
I would also like there to be further analysis of how competing foreign policy interests are prioritised and when they can and cannot be reconciled. The FCO seems to believe that human rights, geopolitical and strategic considerations, energy security and trade promotion can all be pursued simultaneously, maintaining that
“We cannot achieve long-term security and prosperity unless we uphold our values”,
when that quite clearly is not always the case.
That is even reflected in the FCO human rights report. Although the chapter on Saudi Arabia was beefed up in comparison with the previous year’s report, it still contains numerous qualifications to tone criticism down, such as references to “cultural sensitivities”, which are mentioned nowhere else in the report. It is also incomprehensible to me why no mention is made of the complete lack of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Saudi; such a lack is mentioned in the chapter on Iran. If the FCO wants to take a more conciliatory approach in the report in relation to some countries, it should explain why.
Rory Stewart
I am interested in the observation that it is very difficult to square the circle and simultaneously do security, human rights and economic development. Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue there. Does the right hon. Lady have her own way of expressing that? Perhaps she has a better formulation that she would prefer the Foreign Office to have to square that circle. Is there some other way of describing foreign policy, other than in those terms?
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There is no time limit, other than the self-restraint that I know hon. Members will exercise, recognising that a lot of people want to participate in the debate. Although there is no requirement that the debate must finish after one and a half hours, I hope that it will, so that we have an equal amount of time for the second debate. I hope that that helps the right hon. Lady.
Ann Clwyd
Thank you, Mr Chope.
I turn to the criteria for designating countries of concern, which perhaps in part will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I am pleased that the FCO has provided the criteria it uses to make its designations in the 2012 human rights report. I remain baffled, however, that Bahrain, given the continuing serious violations that were committed during the period that the report covers, was not added as a country of concern. I reiterate the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“If there is no significant progress by the start of 2014, the Government should designate Bahrain as a ‘country of concern’”.
Let us hope that the meeting held last week between Bahrain’s Crown Prince and the main opposition leaders signals the willingness of the Bahraini Government and the opposition to engage in meaningful negotiations, leading to meaningful political reform, greater political openness, fairer representation and the end of discrimination. If it does not, I suggest that it is time to get much tougher with Bahrain.
The Foreign Affairs Committee Chair mentioned deportation with assurances, which is a very important point, because the FCO seems satisfied with existing arrangements and has rejected suggestions made by our Committee to strengthen the monitoring process for people returned under those arrangements, including to Ethiopia and Algeria. I urge the FCO to look at the matter again, and remind it that a DWA agreement was also concluded with Libya during the time of Colonel Gaddafi and was seen at the time as perfectly fine. I doubt, for instance, that, as the Chair said, a domestic human rights institution in Ethiopia that is widely known to be ineffective can be trusted to monitor the well-being of those returned to Ethiopia under the agreement.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be much more careful about deporting people to countries that are not signatories to the convention on torture, as a way of protecting them against that and protecting our own legal position?
Ann Clwyd
Yes, I absolutely agree with that observation. Indeed, I think that these arrangements are of political significance and warrant some form of parliamentary control. The non-statutory nature of the memorandums of understanding involved does not prevent parliamentary scrutiny. I would also welcome the FCO’s reporting back to Parliament annually on how effective the monitoring arrangements have been and whether any allegations of abuse have been reported to it.
Like many of my colleagues, I look forward to receiving the findings of the independent investigation being undertaken by David Anderson QC into this policy, although I wonder why it has taken so long to get that investigation off the ground.
The Foreign Affairs Committee Chair also mentioned women’s rights. I join him in commending the Foreign Secretary for taking a lead with the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, but I would like to know whether and how the FCO will involve more UK parliamentarians, particularly in the light of the conference to be held in London in June this year. Women’s organisations are also questioning how the preventing sexual violence initiative and the conference can galvanise support for grass-roots women’s organisations in countries of concern.
Further to the women’s rights agenda, I think that we all need to focus on how to help to support women, including women MPs and civil society more generally, in Afghanistan during and after the NATO withdrawal. Sadly, I do not believe that it is “mission accomplished”. The real gains made for women in the past decade are fragile, and women are likely to become increasingly exposed in coming years. I have seen what has happened in Iraq. I criticise the lack of ongoing support for women in Iraq who are exercising their mandates as Members of Parliament with considerable difficulties. I would like to know what precisely we are continuing to do in Iraq before we start making promises about what we will continue to do in Afghanistan.
I would like to conclude with two points. The first is my concern about growing restrictions in many countries around the world on non-violent civil society activity, including, as Amnesty highlighted recently, the proliferation of “national security” and “public order” legislation aimed at restricting the space in which civil society operates. I would like to know whether the FCO has or is planning to put in place a strategy to counter those negative developments and to provide even more support to beleaguered civil societies in a number of countries. Without a thriving and diverse civil society, democracy is very unlikely to take root.
Similarly, I would like to reiterate concerns expressed by Human Rights Watch about Governments who adopt a feigned democracy, championing elections but rejecting basic principles: that laws apply to those in power and that Governments should respect free speech and uphold the rights of unpopular minorities in their countries.
Secondly, I must take issue with what the FCO report says about promoting “our” values, because what we are doing is promoting universal values. In this connection, I must stress how unhelpful the negative domestic discourse about human rights and universal values is. The UK does not exist in a bubble; what we do and say on human rights is seen not only by those in the UK, but by the rest of the world.
How can we take Russia to task, for example, for not respecting international human rights when we seem only too willing to disparage “universal values” and the rules-based international system when they do not suit us? The “Do as we say, not as we do” approach is unlikely to be very persuasive with others and is very likely to harm us all in the longer term. Without greater respect for human rights worldwide, we are likely to have to deal with more instability, more humanitarian crises, more radicalism and a less secure environment for UK business.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) who, as we know, has made such a signal contribution to the advancement of human rights.
As we know, Mao Tse-tung, who was one of history’s worst human rights abusers, enjoined his followers to carry around his little red book. My personal alternative to the little red book, although I do not always manage to carry it around with me, is the Vienna declaration on human rights, which was made on 25 June 1993 and subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly in UN resolution 48/121.
For me, the most critical article in the declaration is article 5, which states the key principle of the universality of human rights overriding religious, cultural and ethnic traditions. The article reads:
“All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
In the decades since the end of world war two, we have made significant advances around the world in establishing the principle of the universality of human rights, but it seems to me that we are now in danger of standing still or perhaps even going backwards. When one looks around the world and sees the degree of conflict still taking place between religions and within religions, and on an ethnic and tribal basis, when one sees parts of the world—for example, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan—where women’s and girl’s rights are now going backwards, and when there are so many countries in the world in which women’s and girl’s rights barely exist, if they exist at all, one wonders whether the principle of universality is being reversed. The first question I would like to ask the Minister is whether the British Government, and in particular the Foreign Secretary, who has lead responsibility, will create a new initiative with as many countries as possible to stand up for the key principle that the universality of human rights should override all other considerations.
I turn to what I consider to be one of the most important aspects of human rights policy: the British Government’s policy on giving export licence approval to military goods, and dual-use civil and military goods, that can be used for internal repression and the suppression of human rights. Until the week before last, the Government’s policy appeared to be soundly based. The Foreign Secretary told the Committees on Arms Export Controls on 7 February 2012:
“We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”
There were therefore two controls. The first—a very limited control—was to establish a clear risk, which is endlessly debatable. The second—a much wider, more substantive and more embracing control—was to determine whether a given export might be used to facilitate repression. That approach faithfully followed the key policy of the previous Government, which was set out in a written answer on 26 October 2000 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain).
Much to the surprise of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, however, the Foreign Secretary’s oral evidence of 8 January substantially reinterpreted the policy statement that he gave in February 2012. He told the Committees that the limited clear-risk policy applied to all aspects of the policy. In effect, therefore, he was saying that the much more substantial and all-embracing control of whether an export might be used to facilitate internal repression would be governed by clear risk—and would, I believe, be rendered more or less null and void. The question for the House, from a human rights standpoint, is how satisfactory or otherwise it is for the Government to rely solely on a clear-risk control for exports that could be used for internal repression.
I want to put that to the test in an area that has been the subject of much concern, namely the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria. Such exports have taken place since 2004 under the previous Government and the present Government, but I want to focus on the most contentious of all: the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride to Syria in January 2012, which was well after the outbreak of the civil war. When we raised our concerns about that with the Business Secretary in December, he replied, much to our surprise:
“in this case I think we are talking about bog-standard chemicals, which the officials had absolutely no reason whatever to believe had any connection with chemical weapons or were likely to be used in that capacity.”
That comment was made against the following background: first, those chemicals are well known from open sources to be precursor chemicals for the manufacture of sarin; secondly, Syria was and is known to be a major holder of chemical weapons; thirdly, Syria was a known non-signatory of the chemical weapons convention; and, fourthly, at the time at which those export licences were approved, a major and most brutal civil war was taking place in Syria. I would add a fifth point: the Prime Minister subsequently revealed in his statement last August, following the appalling sarin attack on 21 August, that there had been 14 previous uses of sarin in Syria, dating back to 2012. The Business Secretary says even now that those were simply bog-standard chemicals that it was perfectly reasonable to export to Syria. I have to say that if that is how the clear-risk policy operates, it is hardly worth the paper it is written on. I am sure that the Committees on Arms Export Controls will return to that issue, which has profound human rights dimensions.
I want to refer to Bahrain, which the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and I had a meeting with the Bahraini Opposition earlier this week. I believe that Bahrain is at a tipping point. It could go downhill into the serious internal civil strife that we have seen in too many other parts of the middle east, focusing on Sunni and Shi’a. Equally—I still believe that this is a real possibility—it could become a standard bearer in the middle east for the peaceful resolution of such issues and the establishment of an inclusive, fully engaged political process in which all major sectarian groups can participate.
The climate for bringing about the second outcome, which we all wish to see achieved, will take place in a headwind, because over the past year or more in the middle east, we have seen an ever-increasing degeneration into strife between Sunni and Shi’a. Sunnis have become more and more fearful and paranoid about sharing power with Shi’as, and Shi’as have become ever more fearful and paranoid about sharing power with Sunnis. I suggest that the only counter to that will be for the friends of Bahrain, which certainly include Britain, to give fresh impetus and new support to all parties in Bahrain on reaching a peaceful outcome and finding a settlement that is fair and reasonable to all parties. I urge the British Government to play a full role in achieving that.
I turn briefly to children’s rights. I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am an unpaid adviser to the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report recommended
“that the Foreign Secretary appoint a child rights expert to his Advisory Group on Human Rights”.
In their response, the Government effectively rejected that recommendation on the grounds that
“many—if not all—of the group’s members are familiar”,
supposedly,
“with child rights issues.”
I consider that to be a disappointingly superficial and facile reply to the Committee’s recommendation. The disturbing but inescapable reality is that, in this electronic age, criminals facilitating child abuse are adopting ever more sophisticated means of making money through corrupting and abusing children, and they are doing so ahead of the steps that the prosecution services and law enforcement agencies can take against them.
The Prime Minister has rightly seen fit to appoint a special adviser on child protection issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). She has done outstanding work on the issue and continues to do so. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Foreign Secretary that he would be well advised to follow in the Prime Minister’s footsteps.
I am delighted that the present Government are continuing the practice started by the previous Government —most commendably by the late Robin Cook, when he was Foreign Secretary—of producing an annual report on human rights. It is essential work. I appreciate the fact that it involves a lot of work for officials, for which I thank them, but such a report is key to maintaining the credibility of the British Government on human rights issues, both in this country and worldwide. Human rights are the universal entitlement of every man, woman and child on this planet.
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Mike Gapes, may I say that we shall start the Front-Bench speeches at around 2.40 pm?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The universal values of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights are under attack and are being eroded. That is partly due to some issues and conflicts that have already been touched upon, but, unfortunately, it is also due to the shift of economic and political power and influence in the world, which is moving away from the transatlantic agenda of those who wrote the declaration towards other regions of the world with different political histories and traditions. We will have a big fight in this century to maintain those universalist human rights values. It is important, however, that we recognise that there are countries in south and east Asia that are democratic and pluralistic and hold to those values. Such countries include the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, which I recently visited, where people believe in democracy, pluralism and human rights. It is important that we recognise the fact that we have friends in that part of the world and work with them.
I want to make three points. Mention has already been made of Sri Lanka. Members will know that for a long time I have taken an interest in what happened at the end of the civil war there. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), has already referred to some of the issues, so I will not repeat his comments, but it is clear that the Commonwealth did not confront the situation in Sri Lanka in a good way. The question now is whether or not, by March, the Government of Sri Lanka will come forward with credible proposals, as called for by the Prime Minister. If not, the British Government have said that they will refer the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The council has not always had a good record, although the Human Rights Watch report that I saw yesterday refers to an improvement, which I think reflects recent changes to its membership. However, several authoritarian friends of the Rajapaksa family sit on the council, so I am not necessarily convinced that that route will get the solution we want.
Will the Minister address the issue of Sri Lanka in his reply and let us know what is going to happen if its Government do not come forward with a credible, independent inquiry into the events of 2009? Many countries around the world have been calling for such an inquiry, not just the Tamil diaspora. Another mass grave was discovered in a place called Mannar in December. I understand that so far 31 skulls have been discovered, placed on top of each other. Another mass grave was discovered in the centre of Sri Lanka a year ago. It is quite clear that there are questions to be answered about the firing in the so-called no fire zone and the deaths of 40,000 people there in early 2009, just five years ago.
My friend, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, touched on the other issue that will confront us perhaps for decades: the turmoil in the Muslim world. I do not mean just the Arab world, but the wider Muslim world. Iran is, of course, an important contributor to the debate in terms not just of its influence in Bahrain, but its role in supporting Hezbollah, which fights on behalf of Assad in Syria. So far in Syria, 125,000 people have died. Millions are internally displaced, and millions more are refugees. We know what the situation is and we all bear responsibility. The international community has failed the democratic, peaceful activists, women and men, who were calling for change just three years ago. We have failed them. Non-intervention also has consequences; it does not mean that Syria is nothing to do with us. All we can do is say, “We did not help you at your time of need when you were calling for help in 2011.” As a result of that non-intervention, the situation is now much, much worse.
We used to talk about the Arab spring; we are not talking about it anymore. We have probably entered a period of turmoil and unrest that will have inconceivable consequences. Let us look at Egypt. Human Rights Watch has produced an interesting report in which it uses the phrase “abusive majoritarianism.” That is a very interesting concept. The report says, quite rightly, that the Muslim Brotherhood Morsi Government behaved in a sectarian, undemocratic manner towards women and civil society groups in Egypt. However, the military then used the pretext of the mass protests against that regime in order to stage a coup. The British Government do not use the term “coup”—at least, I am not sure that they do; the American Administration certainly do not—but we must be absolutely clear that that is what happened. The regime that is now in charge has killed many more people than were killed in the worst periods under the Mubarak regime. There is terrible violence, but there is also terrorism against police officers and others in Egypt, coming from the Islamist extremists. Egypt, a large country with lots of neighbours, is potentially in a very dangerous position.
In 2012, I went to Egypt with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was fortunate to be able to go from Egypt to Tunisia. Tunisia has had its difficulties, but it has shown how the transition and internal issues can be dealt with in a peaceful, pluralistic way. There are lessons there and there are alternatives.
Mike Gapes
I am afraid that I will not give way because of the time. I want to conclude my remarks in order to be fair to others who wish to speak.
Finally, I want to say that the Government and all parties in the House can be proud that we raise human rights issues internationally. However, I find it disconcerting when there are regimes in Russia and elsewhere, and certain countries in Africa, which are able to quote back at us part of our domestic debate as a way to justify their own bad behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley touched on that issue, and it is right that she did so. Some of our politicians need to be a little more internationalist in the way they approach some of our debates about refugees, economic migrants and people from different communities living together in harmony, because sometimes words may be taken out of context and used by authoritarian people around the world to justify their own behaviour.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, he knows everything there is to know about foreign affairs, so I hesitate to follow him.
I begin by strongly supporting the Committee’s recommendation that the extent of the UK’s engagement in a particular country, or the impact of the human rights situation in that country on wider UK interests, should no longer be included in the criteria used to identify countries to be placed on the list of countries of concern. I can see no case for a country’s inclusion being dependent on whether the UK can—as Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, said in her evidence to the Committee—“make a difference”. Apart from anything else, many of the countries already on the list have seen little or no improvement despite being categorised as a country of concern and therefore presumably having been pressed further by the UK to improve human rights.
No one pretends that it is easy to effect change in brutal regimes that are strangers to the concept of basic human rights, but bringing UK interests into the equation, in the way that that is being done, devalues our own commitment as a country to the need to uphold universal human rights. For example, Bahrain has already been mentioned by several colleagues and I have had strong representations from constituents who believe that it should be rated as a country of concern because of human rights abuses. However, they also believe that that is not being done because of the UK’s interests in selling military equipment to Bahrain. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how that can be classified as an objective evaluation, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says is the case in the criteria for countries of concern. There seems to be inconsistency; some countries that are left off the list are just as bad as some of the countries that are on it.
Of course, one tactic for making a difference and influencing countries of concern is to refuse to allow them international status by holding major events. I personally regret that the Prime Minister chose to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo. In the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Commonwealth, which was published in November 2012, the Committee took the view that the Prime Minister:
“should publicly state his unwillingness to attend CHOGM unless he receives convincing and independently verified evidence of substantial and sustainable improvements in human and political rights in Sri Lanka”.
No such evidence was forthcoming. In fact, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International took the view that the opposite was the case. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister decided to go to CHOGM and stated that he would “shine a light” on the situation in Sri Lanka. To be fair, he did so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has said, the Prime Minister also called for an international inquiry into allegations of war crimes if no credible domestic investigations are carried out by March 2014.
The human rights situation in Sri Lanka will come before the UN Human Rights Council next at its 25th session, which is to be held from 3 to 28 March 2014. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a comprehensive report on the implementation of Human Rights Council resolution 22/1 on Sri Lanka of March 2013.
Will the Government follow up on the Prime Minister’s commitment by working with others to obtain agreement for the establishment of an international investigation into allegations of crimes under international law by all sides in Sri Lanka? Also, what action will the Government take to keep up the pressure on the Sri Lankan Government about ongoing human rights abuses?
As the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Committee, has said, of particular concern to the Committee are instances where allegations have been made of the torture of Sri Lankan Tamils who had been returned from the UK as failed asylum seekers. The Government previously maintained that they had no substantiated evidence that people returned by the UK immigration authorities to Sri Lanka had been maltreated. It is very important that we hear from the Minister whether the Government still stand by that opinion. It is not repeated in the FCO’s 2012 report and we did not get a straight answer from Baroness Warsi, who appeared before the Committee, when she was asked about it. Can we have a straight answer from the Minister who is here today when he responds to the debate?
I turn now to the prevention of sexual violence against women in conflict. The Committee rightly welcomed the initiative by the Foreign Secretary on this issue. Having worked on the issue of violence against women for more than 30 years—in fact, I still chair my local Women’s Aid group—I can honestly say that that initiative is one of the most positive steps that we have seen internationally for years.
Although we all know that violence against women persists in this country and that much more still needs to be done to prevent it, the prevalence of violence towards women in conflict situations throughout the globe—the nature and extent of the problem—has come increasingly to the fore, after being swept under the carpet for years. Rape as a weapon of war is one of the most heinous abuses of human rights of our time, and it is right that concentration is given to tackling the impunity to it that all too often exists. However, in doing so, it must be remembered that protection of victims and prevention of violence must also be taken into account.
The declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict, which has been signed by 137 countries to date, is a fantastic achievement. I agree with the response to our report by the FCO, which emphasises that in addition to encouraging other countries to contribute personnel to the teams of experts providing support, we should also build national capacities. As well as being practical, we know that the only way that there will be an end to violence against women is by changing attitudes to women and promoting equality.
As one of the co-chairs of the all-party group on Afghanistan, I am particularly concerned that we do not abandon the women of Afghanistan when international security assistance force troops are withdrawn from the country. The campaign in Afghanistan has been a long one, but I think that most people would agree that one of the successes of the last decade in the country has been the advancement of women’s rights. The women and girls of Afghanistan are now protected by law from rape within marriage; they can seek justice and support if they are sexually abused; and millions of girls now have access to education. However, these transformative changes are variable, fragile and at risk, as other colleagues have said. Also, as we say in our report, the act of passing legislation outlawing violence against women is not a “big step forward” if that legislation is not implemented.
The recent suggestion that public stoning for adultery should be reintroduced in Afghanistan may well be a sign of things to come. Although I recognise that President Karzai has publicly stated that public stoning will not be reintroduced, it beggars belief that we have come full circle and are still discussing the very practices that existed under the Taliban’s brutality. President Karzai will come under ever more pressure to abandon the women of Afghanistan. As western forces leave, he will need the support of conservative hard-liners to strengthen his increasingly vulnerable Government, and he may be tempted to offer abandonment of women’s rights as a concession to the Taliban as part of a deal to end the war.
I welcome the advocacy work that the UK Government have done with the Afghan authorities to ensure that women’s rights were included in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework—the accountability agreement between the Government of Afghanistan and the international community—and the financial support for civil society organisations that has been delivered through the Department for International Development.
It is especially welcome that there has been success in incorporating benchmarks on tackling violence against women in Afghanistan. However, the agreed benchmarks have yet to be reached. The Government of Afghanistan agreed to release a province-by-province report of investigated cases of violence against women and girls by 3 July 2013, but that report has not yet materialised. I hope that our Government will continue to press the authorities in Afghanistan, in the strongest possible terms, to meet their commitments, particularly on women’s rights.
With that, I will conclude, so that other Members can speak.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I will take five minutes, Mr Chope, to allow my colleagues to speak; I think that fits the arithmetic.
I will put on record the fact that I have raised with the Leader of the House the issue about the conduct of this debate, its timing and the opportunity for it, and I will continue to do so. It is wholly inadequate that we have 90 minutes to discuss the human rights of the whole world, on the back of a serious report by the Foreign Office, the Select Committee’s response to that report and the Government’s response to the Committee’s report. It is incumbent on all of us to put pressure on the relevant channels to ensure that we get a much longer debate on the Floor of the House or a three-hour debate here—something much better than this.
I want to deal with a couple of thematic issues. I attend the United Nations Human Rights Council as often as I can. I find it interesting. It is a great improvement on the Commission on Human Rights, in that there is a more transparent election process for membership of the council, and the universal periodic review process means that every country is put under a microscope at some point. That has to be a good thing. We are now coming to the end of the period for the first reviews in the UPR process. This is beginning to be the problem area. Where a UPR has come up with significant human rights concerns about a particular country—there are many of them—and a report comes back that is inadequate or has responded insufficiently to the Human Rights Council, the question is, how assertive is the Council prepared to be in future? There are no simple answers to this and it is a matter of involving people in debate and negotiation.
I should be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the direction of travel in this regard, because the Human Rights Council provides an opportunity to embarrass the human rights abusers and an opportunity for non-governmental organisations to make their views known, as well. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that, in any discussions about the future structure of the Human Rights Council, which Britain is now a member of, the Government will continue to press for one of the basic principles of the United Nations organisation and agencies, which is the opportunity for civil society to be able to speak at the Human Rights Council, and at other agencies. However, I am more concerned about the Human Rights Council, because it provides an expatriate non-governmental organisation, for example, or an NGO in a country with a fairly repressive regime, the one opportunity to embarrass their Government and raise issues of torture and human rights abuse. That is a precious right. I hope that the Government are prepared to support that.
I should also like the Minister to respond, if he could, on the question about Britain’s attitude to the European convention on human rights. I support the convention and guess that every hon. Member in this Chamber does. I support the European Court of Human Rights, in the sense that it exists and is an important process and helps set a benchmark. Many hon. Members have expressed concern, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson, about the treatment of Pussy Riot in Russia and the abuse of human rights there. The European Court of Human Rights process has been quite an important tool for human rights defenders in Russia and in other countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Turkey and many other places, allowing them to raise such issues. If they think that the British Government’s sole policy is to continually denigrate and attack the European Court of Human Rights, and withdraw from the convention and that human rights process, that has two effects. First, it reduces our moral authority to say anything about anything and, secondly, it is a signal to many other countries that they, too, could follow the same path if life became embarrassing for them. The point of a convention, and of a transnational court, is that it has authority and has an effect on national policies.
There are many countries that I want to mention, but there is not time to do so. I just want to draw attention to the report’s contents concerning Iran, the points about Bahrain made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and the interesting section on Saudi Arabia, to which attention has been drawn by hon. Members. I ask the Foreign Office and the Committee to persist with Saudi Arabia, particularly on migrant workers, and with regard to the lack of rights for migrant workers all over the Gulf region. The abuse of their human rights and their civil and political rights is a time bomb ticking away.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report and I appreciate much of the Government’s response. There are rarely quick fixes with regard to human rights. Much of the work is painstaking and involves like-minded countries trying to help bring international pressure to bear, to tackle human rights abuses. I wish to raise a few points in the short time that I have.
I fear that President Putin may be attempting to trivialise the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Russia. I ask that all means are used—all channels of Government communication—to bring as much international pressure as possible to bear on Russia, to stop the repression and recognise full LGBT rights. Once the Sochi Olympic games are over, there is a danger that the issue will slip from view.
The UK is not in the Schengen area, so it is technically correct that it does not have influence on countries within that area. However, these are partner EU countries with which we have frequent interaction, so I find the Government’s answer in the report a little weak. We have clear expectations of other countries that want to form closer relationships with the EU and there could be much broader collaboration with EU colleagues, specifically on putting pressure on Russia in this matter. Perhaps the Minister will mention that.
On Burma, I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Committee Chair. Although we were all delighted at the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and with her visit to Parliament, that is certainly not the whole story. Renewed efforts are needed to tackle the Government in Burma on the continued repression, recent arrests of political activists, and issues relating to Rakhine state.
On sexual violence, I concur with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I support the UK’s initiatives in challenging the use of sexual violence in conflict and in the difficult task of trying to change attitudes, to try to stop the collusion in and cover-up of such crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The Government response makes exhortations about approaching other countries to provide expert teams for the painstaking and challenging work involved in tackling the use of sexual violence in conflict, and it mentions the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 28 November, saying likewise. What progress is being made on involving other countries and providing teams for this work? Although the initiative has been taken, in some ways, by this country, the area is so huge that we need as much help as we can possibly get.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Committee and the Foreign Office on their reports. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn): this is my third time responding to this debate and every year we make the same point, which is that we really cannot do justice to the depth and scope of the report in 90 minutes. I hope that whatever mechanisms are available are put in place to ensure that there is a full debate on the Floor of the House, perhaps when the next report is published later this year.
I will not, because of the short time available, dwell on points made powerfully by hon. Friends and other hon. Members: the valid point about why Bahrain is listed as a country of concern; the praise for the preventing sexual violence initiative; concerns about women in Afghanistan; concerns about the arms export regime; and points made about restrictions on freedom of expression, which is a growing trend, with increased use of the internet and surveillance in that regard. Another valid point was the support for the principle of the universality of human rights, which we see echoed time and again in our debates on this issue and which is important for us to defend.
Given my limited time, I will focus on the countries singled out by the Committee. First, the UK was right to object in 2009 to Sri Lanka’s hosting CHOGM in 2011. As Baroness Warsi noted in her evidence, we also raised concerns then about the prospect of 2013. That was regarded as something that ought to be kept under review, if there was no improvement in the human rights situation.
It is disappointing that a more robust position was not taken in 2011. It is well known that the Opposition disagreed with the Government’s decision to send the highest possible delegation to CHOGM and we still do not understand why the Government felt it necessary to confirm who would attend six months before the event. That removed a powerful lever that they could have used on Sri Lanka in the intervening period, to get it to try to improve its human rights situation.
The FCO states that the Government
“used the run-up to the Summit to urge Sri Lanka to make progress on human rights concerns”,
about implementing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to allow unrestricted media and NGO access. Of course, the latter did not materialise, as the likes of Channel 4 news attest to.
It is interesting that the list of subjects raised before the summit does not include an independent and credible investigation into alleged violations of international law. The Prime Minister’s call at CHOGM for an investigation was too little, too late. Reports from Sri Lanka indicate that the President is no more inclined to meet the request for an inquiry than he was before CHOGM.
I urge the Foreign Office to start talks with its international counterparts now. Doing nothing until the March deadline will leave it too late to agree terms of reference for or the composition of an international inquiry at the Human Rights Council in March, thereby leaving the Sri Lankan people waiting still longer for justice and reconciliation. As the Foreign Office’s update this month disappointingly confirms, there has been no improvement in human rights since CHOGM and little commitment to addressing sexual violence. Sri Lanka has still not signed up to the preventing sexual violence initiative, although the Foreign Secretary has said that he is still hopeful that it will.
Given the concern about ongoing violations, I would appreciate an update on the safety of the human rights defenders whom the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met during their visits. I echo the point about the deportation of Sri Lankan nationals. In light of the severity of the torture allegations, it is disturbing that that issue was taken out of the FCO’s latest human rights report and that Baroness Warsi
“declined to give a direct answer”
to the Committee. I hope the Minister agrees that the Foreign Office cannot be silent on such allegations and that he will commit to working with the Home Office and organisations such as Freedom from Torture and to upholding article 3 of the UN convention against torture.
I welcome the Committee’s reminder that, although Burma has come a long way, there is still a long way to go. It is important that the lifting of EU sanctions should be used as leverage to press for more concerted action on human rights. The opportunity that provides for economic development and greater inward investment in Burma could in turn promote further democratic reforms. We welcome the EU’s continued involvement and the confirmation of an EU-Burma human rights dialogue.
We also welcome the decision of the President of Burma to release political prisoners but, as the Committee’s report highlights, there are worrying restrictions on the definition of “political prisoner” and troubling conditions were imposed on the release of prisoners in the past. We urge the Government to renew their efforts to secure the unconditional release of all those unjustly detained and to press for the necessary legal and judicial reforms to end arbitrary or politically motivated detention.
The ongoing tensions in Rakhine state, the discrimination suffered by the Rohingya and the conflict in Kachin state must remain on the international agenda, as is recognised in the latest country of concern update. The Rakhine investigation commission was not sufficient, the irregularities in Burma’s 1982 citizenship law are unresolved and the prejudice against the Rohingya community remains.
Finally, it is important that the UK should continue to press Burma on the role and powers of the military, particularly in light of the British Army’s involvement with the Burmese army. Constitutional reforms are also paramount to removing the obstacles to free, fair and inclusive elections next year, including the barrier to Aung San Suu Kyi’s standing for President.
Next, the Committee was right to focus on Russia. The “foreign agents” law was among the most disturbing indications of Russia’s attempts to stifle civil society and dissent and to shield the Government from scrutiny, along with other restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and expression, including a new blasphemy law and increased internet regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. It is disappointing that Baroness Warsi did not fully engage with the Committee’s discussions on using the Schengen negotiations as leverage and that her letter to the Chair told the Committee “remarkably little”. I hope Ministers are considering all tools at their disposal.
On LGBT rights, there is little surprise that Russia was ranked the worst of 48 countries in ILGA-Europe’s index of legal and human rights for gay people. Conversely, the UK was ranked first, of which we should be proud—that also gives us a special status in pressing for gay rights on the international front.
The spotlight provided by the winter Olympics no doubt contributed to President Putin’s amnesty and the release of the Arctic 30, Nadya and Masha from Pussy Riot and Mikhail Khodorkovsky among others. It is important that that pressure and trend should be maintained after the spotlight of Sochi has dimmed. As Mr Khodorkovsky highlighted on his release, many more political prisoners remain in detention. We must also consider Human Rights Watch’s warning that Sochi means that Russian authorities have intensified the harassment and intimidation of campaigners; other Governments and the International Olympic Committee should take note. Given that Russia is due to host the 2018 football World cup, FIFA should also be taking a close interest.
Human rights dialogue with Russia provides a welcome opportunity to focus on the UK’s serious concerns but, as the Committee and Baroness Warsi noted, such dialogue does not necessarily achieve a great deal. I hope the FCO will give particular consideration to Human Rights Watch’s recommendation for a more collaborative and united approach from the EU. Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe provides another forum for the UK to raise our objections, especially given that Conservative and United Russia MPs are members of the same group, as does Russia’s return to membership of the Human Rights Council.
The broader issue of LGBT rights was not explicitly addressed in the FAC report. I have mentioned Russia, but we have to look further afield and particularly to the Commonwealth, three quarters of which still criminalises homosexuality. Concerns remain about the situations in Uganda and Cameroon, for example, and about the recent repressive legislation passed by Nigeria. We must be unequivocal that such criminalisation breaches the core values set out in the Commonwealth charter.
I join the Committee in welcoming the long-awaited publication of the Government’s business and human rights strategy. It remains a concern, however, that Ministers, when considering opportunities to promote British companies and investment abroad, are willing to overlook human rights. The Chancellor and the Mayor of London certainly gave the impression that they were reluctant to raise China’s human rights record when they visited last year. The Treasury declined to answer my question on whether the Chancellor had discussed human rights in China and the action plan on business and human rights with the Foreign Office before or after he went. Indeed, the answer to that question was delegated to a junior Treasury Minister who did not even go on the trip. I tabled named day questions to the Prime Minister in advance of his visit to China, but the answer I received several weeks later was, frankly, worthless. It did not tell me anything.
We value a strong bilateral relationship with China, but that cannot be confined just to trade and financial matters. We need political engagement across the spectrum, and it is disappointing that some Ministers seem to view discussions on human rights as a box-ticking exercise so that they can give parliamentary answers to shadow Ministers saying “nothing was off limits” without revealing any more information.
I press the Minister to ensure that implementing the business and human rights action plan is a priority for his colleagues, who need to be fully briefed, for instance, on the reason for the FCO’s designation of a particular state as a country of concern. I am not talking about just Foreign Office Ministers and Treasury Ministers but Ministers across the piste.
Companies doing business abroad should be fully briefed, too. I understand that 130 representatives went to China with the Prime Minister; it would have been a good idea to sit down with them before the trip to discuss the business and human rights action plan so that they had some understanding of the context.
The Committee warns:
“The FCO should not simply allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint”.
Indeed, following concerns raised in last year’s debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls reported on the overlap between arms export licences and countries of concern, as was flagged up by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I hope the Minister will update us on how the FCO is working on that with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Trade & Investment.
Finally, I welcome the UK’s return to the Human Rights Council, which provides another avenue for the Government to pursue the concerns we have discussed this afternoon. I hope that next year’s debate will allow us to focus on more successful examples of how the UK has exercised influence in the international sphere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. The debate has been stimulating, well informed and productive. We have heard significant contributions, none more so than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a detailed and articulate speech highlighted several of the key aspects of the FCO and FAC reports on the important subject of human rights. He was also right to put those in the context of some of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. The Foreign Office has listened carefully to the Committee’s constructive suggestions.
I will try to reply to the many issues about which hon. Members spoke, if they will bear with me. I apologise if I do not deal with everything that was raised, but I shall ensure that hon. Members’ important points are followed up in writing so that all who participated in the debate receive specific responses.
My right hon. Friend and others raised the important matter of deportation with assurances arrangements. I put on record that DWA is entirely consistent with our human rights obligations under international law and our policy of working to prevent torture overseas. The Government will not deport someone if there are substantive grounds for believing that they face a real risk of torture or other cruel, degrading treatment in their host country. DWA enables the UK to reduce the threat from terrorism while meeting domestic and international human rights obligations.
My right hon. Friend and others were right to mention Burma and the plight of the Rohingya. The Government are highly vocal in expressing concern about that plight. When President Thein Sein visited the United Kingdom in July last year, the situation in Rakhine state was at the heart of discussions between him and the Government. In December 2013, our ambassador in Burma visited Rakhine state and discussed human rights with authorities. We have been clear with the Burmese Government that people must be held accountable when serious crimes have been committed. We continue to lobby the Burmese Government that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights be allowed to open an office in the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is the Minister of State at the FCO with responsibility for Burma, is engaged with human rights issues in that country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South also highlighted the interruption of broadcasting. The UK Government strongly support an open internet that is accountable to all, providing not only access to information, but mechanisms for individuals to communicate. We strongly condemn deliberate interference, and the Government support work to encourage satellite providers to adopt technology that counters uplink jamming.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was absolutely right to refer to the importance of more analysis and evaluation. The content of the report that is made public is inevitably only the tip of the iceberg of the thorough and detailed analysis and assessment. It is underpinned by an FCO-wide analysis, which the Government have further strengthened through the network of expert human rights advisory groups on thematic issues, which are chaired by the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi.
The right hon. Lady was also right to highlight the importance of the evaluation of programmes and focusing on outcomes. We carry out extensive, in-country evaluations on all projects that we fund through the human rights and democracy programme to ensure that lessons are learned and applied in future programmes. We are about to launch the 2014 bidding round and have made several improvements to the process in the light of the evaluation of previous years. I emphasise the importance that all Ministers in the FCO attach to civil society, which was an important point of hers. I assure her that as my ministerial colleagues and I travel around the globe we insist on meeting civil society organisations and representatives of civil society not only to provide them with moral and sometimes financial support, but so that we can lobby host Governments in an informed manner.
The right hon. Lady and others were quite right to state the importance of the preventing sexual violence initiative. We are keen to engage with all hon. Members, not just those on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we desire expert and enthusiastic engagement. I urge the right hon. Lady to request official information about the summit in June, which will hopefully be a watershed moment that lifts the stigma from victims and pins it on the perpetrators, ending the atmosphere of impunity that has lasted for far too long. I assure her that the summit will be open to all who are interested, passionate and enthusiastic about this agenda.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) was right in his outline of the universality of human rights. I assure him that that will be our guiding light as we take up our seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council this year and the common factor—the golden thread—in all the initiatives that we take there. He has a particular knowledge of and interest in export licensing architecture and arrangements. In response to his point, the United Kingdom has one of the most stringent arms export control systems in the world. The export licence applications for everything, including in the Syria chemicals case that he raised, were properly assessed against the consolidated criteria, taking into account all relevant information. There was no evidence of a link to a chemical weapons programme and we have seen no subsequent information to suggest that the goods were diverted to such a programme.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the important issue of Bahrain. We continue to have concerns about human rights, but improvements made since 2011 should be noted, especially progress in judicial and security sector reform. I acknowledge and accept, however, that more needs to be done. We regularly raise our concerns both publicly and in private with the Bahraini Government.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned children’s rights. It is correct that the advisory group’s membership should remain limited for practical reasons that he will understand. That should not, however, be interpreted as underlying evidence that the protection and promotion of children’s rights do not form an integral part of the FCO’s wider human rights agenda, because they do. The FCO provides financial support to programmes in this area and works to ensure that international commitments on child rights are fully implemented. Our embassies and high commissioners have a responsibility to monitor and raise human rights issues including, importantly, children’s rights. Only this week, I held a meeting with representatives of the NGO community with a particular interest and expertise in children’s rights, including on preventing sexual violence against children and children serving in armed forces—whether state or non-state—to find out what more the Government, NGOs and wider civil society can do to try to make even faster progress in conjunction with multilateral institutions such as the UN.
I want quickly to address the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South and others about Sri Lanka. When launching the human rights report in Westminster earlier this week, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch said that the Prime Minister was right to go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka and commended the Government’s determination to secure a tough resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, which included a mechanism for an international inquiry. I want to ensure that the House understands that if a credible domestic process has not properly begun by March 2014, we will use our position on the UN Human Rights Council to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and call for an international investigation. We will play an active role in building international support for that approach ahead of the March meeting. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is right, however, that we face an uphill struggle to secure the passage of an appropriately robust resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, but I assure him that the FCO network is already hard at work with the resolution’s main sponsor, the United States, to mobilise opinion and the necessary majority, and that our campaign at the Human Rights Council will be led at ministerial level.
There are many other aspects that I could cover in response to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members, but I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I want to assure those hon. Members who still harbour worries that the criteria for selecting countries of concern have become subjective. They have not; they remain objective. We continue to prioritise our efforts on the basis of our influence, not our interest, and that will remain the case.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made some good points but, if I may, I will respond to him in writing, given the time pressure that we are under. Some of what he said about the universal periodic review of rights is absolutely on the right lines. I will also respond to the hon. Members who made points about Russia and elsewhere.
Sir Richard Ottaway
I am obliged to you, Mr Chope, for presiding over such an orderly debate. I am grateful to my colleagues, and we look forward to getting the Minister’s written responses to the points he has not covered.