House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The FCO’s human rights work in 2011 Third Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 September 2012 HC 116 Published on 17 October 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South) (Chair) Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East) Mr John Baron (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Rt Hon Ann Clwyd (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes (Labour/Co-op, Ilford South) Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-op, Preston) Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford) Mr Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Rory Stewart (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the parliament: Emma Reynolds (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Mr Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including news items) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/facom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the front of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mr Kenneth Fox (Clerk), Mr Philip Aylett (Second Clerk), Adèle Brown (Committee Specialist), Dr Brigid Fowler (Committee Specialist), Ms Zoe Oliver-Watts (Committee Specialist), Mr Richard Dawson (Senior Committee Assistant), Jacqueline Cooksey (Committee Assistant), Vanessa Hallinan (Committee Assistant), and Mr Alex Paterson (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6105; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] The FCO’s human rights work in 2011 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 Conclusions and recommendations 7 1 Introduction 13 2 The FCO’s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report 14 Format and content 14 Evaluation 15 Main events of 2011 15 Development and publication of strategy documents 15 United Nations Human Rights Council 15 Chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers 16 European Convention on Human Rights 17 Thematic issues 18 Women’s human rights 18 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence 19 Children’s human rights 20 FCO policy development and staffing 21 Secretary of State’s Advisory Group 21 Staffing on human rights 22 3 “Countries of concern” 24 4 Torture 29 Torture prevention 29 Removal and deportation 31 Removal of asylum seekers 31 Deportation with assurances 33 Rendition 36 5 Applying public pressure 38 Economic sanctions 38 Burma 39 Boycotts of international events 41 Denial of visas for entry to the UK 43 6 Business and human rights 46 Promoting responsible business practice 46 Controlling the supply of goods for potential use in repression 51 Arms 51 Export of telecommunications technology 52 7 Conclusion 53 2 The FCO’s human rights work in 2011 Formal Minutes 54 Witnesses 56 List of printed written evidence 56 The FCO’s human rights work in 2011 3 Summary We welcome the considerable effort which has gone into the preparation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report, which is seen as authoritative and comprehensive. Our only substantial criticism of the report itself is the absence of any systematic evaluation of the Department’s human rights policies and initiatives, and we recommend that the FCO experiment in the next report with introducing accountability measures for some of its human rights programmes, for instance by setting benchmarks, targets and indicators. Countries of concern The FCO has extended the list of ‘countries of concern’, where human rights failings are serious and to which the FCO wants to draw particular attention. While we believe that the designation of ‘countries of concern’ serves a useful purpose in stating in a very public fashion that the UK believes that human rights in those countries fall well short of what is deemed acceptable internationally, the criteria for designation remain vague, and the practice can appear inconsistent and restrictive. We recommend that decisions on designation should be based purely on assessments of human rights standards and should not be coloured by external factors, such as strategic considerations or the UK’s ability to influence developments. Given the Bahraini authorities’ brutal repression of demonstrators in February and March 2011, we believe that Bahrain should have been designated as a country of concern in the FCO’s 2011 report on human rights and democracy. It is inevitable that the UK will have strategic, commercial or security-related interests which have the potential to conflict with its human rights values. In our view, it would be in the Government’s interest for it to be more transparent in acknowledging that there will be contradictions in pursuing these interests while promoting human rights values. The Government’s role should be publicly to set out and explain its judgments on how far to balance the two in particular cases, having taken into account the need to adapt policy according to local circumstances and developments. Removal and deportation The UK is committed, as a state party to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, not to return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be placed at risk of torture on their return. Yet there are persistent allegations that asylum-seekers who have been returned to Sri Lanka by the UK have suffered torture and ill-treatment. When we tried to explore the issue, the Government was not particularly forthcoming about its efforts—in general and in specific cases—to assess the level of risk to the safety of those who are removed from the UK. We found this unsatisfactory. We encourage the FCO to be energetic in evaluating reports by non-governmental organisations and media sources of torture of deportees from the UK. The Government should also clarify the division between the roles of the FCO and of the UK Border Agency’s Country of Origin Information Service in gathering the intelligence needed to make accurate assessments of risk. 4 The FCO’s human rights work in 2011 Deportation with assurances We share the unease held by others with the Government’s deportation with assurances (DWA) policy, and we conclude that DWA arrangements would command greater confidence if both parties to the agreement were to have signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), which would signify that the states concerned permitted regular independent monitoring of places and conditions of detention. We recommend that Parliament should be informed of the names of those responsible for monitoring conditions, and the arrangements made for follow-up monitoring. We also believe that DWA arrangements are of such significance that the text of each future arrangement should be laid before Parliament and should not come into force before 14 sitting days have elapsed, during which time Members may signify any objection. Burma The EU’s decision in April partially to suspend sanctions against Burma, in recognition of the more reformist approach adopted by the Burmese authorities in 2011, needed to be finely judged, given continuing evidence of human rights abuses in Kachin and Rakhine States and the continued detention of political prisoners. However, we are satisfied that enough progress towards reform has been made in Burma to justify some relaxation of the EU’s sanctions regime, although we are in no doubt that Burma’s human rights record remains seriously blemished. The UK can and should build on the current climate of goodwill to press for wider reform, including access to those still held in detention as political prisoners or for political offences or for politically-motivated reasons. We also recommend that the UK urge the Burmese authorities to permit independent observers to visit Rakhine State, to gather objective evidence on the extent to which the rights of the Rohingya minority are being respected. Boycotts of international events We find it difficult to discern any consistency of logic behind the Government’s policy in not taking a public stance on whether sponsors, drivers or the media should boycott the Bahrain Grand Prix, but implementing at least a partial boycott of 2012 UEFA European Football Championship matches played in Ukraine. Denial of visas for entry to the UK The Government does not routinely publicise the identity of individuals denied a visa to enter the UK, and it has resisted calls to make public any denial of visas to enter the UK for those who held responsibility in the chain of events which led to the death of Mr Sergei Magnitsky in pre-trial detention in Russia in 2009. However, we believe that, when used sparingly, publicising the names of those denied entry on human rights grounds could be a valuable tool in drawing attention to the UK’s determination to uphold high standards of human rights, and we recommend that the Government make use of it.