TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
_________
Members present:
Mr Donald Anderson, Chairman
Ms Diane Abbott
Mr David Chidgey
Sir Peter Emery
Mr Norman A. Godman
Mr Eric Illsley
Mr Andrew Mackinlay
Sir David Madel
Mr Ted Rowlands
Sir John Stanley
Dr Phyllis Starkey
Mr David Wilshire
_________
MR PETER HAIN, a Member of the House, Minister of State, MR TONY
BRENTON, Director of Global Issues Command, and DR CAROLYN BROWNE,
Head of Human Rights Department Policy, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, examined.
Chairman
1. Minister, may I welcome you very warmly to this meeting with your
two colleagues. Perhaps you could introduce your colleagues and then we will
start.
(Mr Hain) Thank you very much, Chair. Could I introduce first of all
Tony Brenton, the Director of Global Issues Command at the Foreign Office, and
Carolyn Browne, who is Head of the Human Rights Policy Department. Perhaps
I may make a very short statement.
2. Can you make it fairly short please?
(Mr Hain) I will do indeed. The Government has given human rights
higher priority. Since its inception in 1998 our Human Rights Project Fund
has supported 330 projects worth œ9.3 million in 60 countries, we have
strengthened our dialogue with civil society, including through twice-yearly
human rights non-governmental organisation fora that I chair, NGO experts
joining us as advisors and sending staff on secondments to NGOs. We
introduced in 1997 new criteria to control United Kingdom arms sales and work
with EU partners to introduce the EU code of conduct on arms exports in 1998.
We have published two annual reports on our strategic export controls, putting
us at the forefront of transparency in arms exports in Europe and holding
ourselves readily accountable. We lobby for the abolition of the death
penalty and for clemency in its application worldwide. Our record, as set out
in our Annual Reports on Human Rights, has been recognised by other
governments and the European Union, who have followed our example. Amnesty
International, for example, has said, "Two years into the present Government's
term of office, it is clear that it has made a genuine and active commitment
to human rights in a variety of areas." We are committed to doing whatever
we can, wherever we can, to support democracy and human rights as a key
priority of our foreign policy.
Chairman: Minister, thank you for that. As you know, this Committee
from the start has sought to focus on human rights. Our first major report
was in the field of the ethical dimension of the Government's foreign policy.
We intend regularly to follow up the conclusions and recommendations we made
in that report. We were interested yesterday that the Foreign Secretary said
that the International Criminal Court would be referred to this Committee and
I intend on behalf of the Committee to contact the Foreign Secretary to obtain
further and better particulars of what he intends. What I should like to do
now is ask Dr Godman to follow up the European Union dimension of the annual
human rights report.
Mr Godman
3. Minister, good morning. The Chairman, with characteristic
generosity, has allowed me to come in first because I have to leave early, so
my apologies for my early departure. Could I ask a question on human rights
in the European Union? Javier Solano is the Higher Representative of the
Common Foreign Security Policy. What prominence is given to human rights in
this role of his?
(Mr Hain) I would want to see as prominent a role as possible on his
behalf and of course we will see, partly as a result of our initiative, the
publication by the European Union of its first ever human rights report later
this year, and it was largely on our own initiative that that happened.
4. That annual report, what role does he play in it? Will he be the
author of it? He has not been in the position long enough, has he?
(Mr Hain) I do not think he will be the author of it, but I guess he
will be a contributor to it.
5. He might edit it, in other words, and in editing it he may have
to take account of the different perspectives on human rights that exist
within the European Union. Is that not the case?
(Mr Brenton) Would it be helpful if I described the process? The
report has been negotiated amongst the Member States of the EU. It will issue
very shortly; I think it is due to issue before the end of this month. It
was, as the Minister has said, Robin Cook with Joschka Fischer, the German
Foreign Minister, who launched the idea, so it is very much a British
prominence to this. Javier Solano will as it were inherit the report; it will
provide a basis for the policies which he will then be expected to pursue on
behalf of the European Union in the months to come.
6. But he will be able to disclaim responsibility for this first
report?
(Mr Brenton) He works for the European Union. He will not disclaim
responsibility for it. He will work on the basis of it.
(Mr Hain) I would not want to see any European official, especially
somebody in as prominent a position as that, disclaiming responsibility for
an agreed report on human rights to which we attach a lot of importance.
7. That is very reassuring. Are there any major differences in
approach to the betterment of human rights amongst Member States?
(Mr Hain) There are. Some, like ourselves, put it in the forefront of
their international policy agenda. Others put, for example, commercial or
defence considerations much higher up the international agenda relatively
speaking than we do. By and large though we are able to pursue our agenda as
we have done on arms exports, for example, in the context of the European
Union, relatively successfully and we are quite pleased with progress. I
think Britain deserves a lot of credit for initiating that.
8. Those who traditionally, if I can put it that way, have placed
perhaps greater emphasis than others on commercial and trade interests, are
they coming into line? Are they more willing to listen to, say, your
goodselves and the Swedish representatives?
(Mr Hain) As you say, we have, along with Sweden and many other
Scandinavian countries, put human rights higher up the agenda. The growing
world intention that we are very much at the forefront of, that important non-
governmental organisations focus attention on, are requiring the EU to give
an increasing priority to this and all its members to address it.
9. So what you are saying is that we are moving to a more cohesive
European Union-wide approach to human rights, that there is no country dodging
the column?
(Mr Hain) I am not saying that no country might be more inclined to
dodge the column than another one. I am saying that we attach a great deal
of importance to it and we feel we have been making progress.
Chairman
10. Minister, in the past the Committee has made representations that
Solana's team, the planning cell, should have human rights experts attached
to it, seconded perhaps from national governments. Has that been done; does
he have the human resources for this report?
(Mr Hain) I think there is a long way to go still and we will continue
to monitor the situation very heavily.
11. Can you say if there any human rights experts in the team of
Solano?
(Mr Hain) I am not sure exactly what the composition of human rights
experts as against others is.
(Mr Brenton) I think they are general purpose diplomats. This is a
very small team and, as the Minister said, this is the nucleus of something
which we expect to grow and will no doubt take on a large human rights
dimension as it grows.
(Mr Hain) We welcome your interest and pressure on this.
12. You have made your point before. If this is to be a serious
report on human rights, clearly there should be either diplomats with a
serious background in human rights or representatives of NGOs seconded to that
planning cell. Minister, will you try to follow that up?
(Mr Hain) That is certainly something which I will look at very
sympathetically. It is something that I take on board, particularly with the
force with which you have expressed it.
Ms Abbott
13. Good morning, Minister. Who takes the lead responsibility for
Government policy regarding human rights? The FCO or DfID?
(Mr Hain) We work together very closely.
14. We know that, but who is the lead Department?
(Mr Hain) It depends whether it is on a development issue or on a
foreign policy issue. In terms of joined-up government we co-operate on a
range of different projects. I meet Clare Short, for example, regularly, the
Secretary of State for International Development, to discuss our common
position on human rights amongst others. As to who leads on it, I guess we
do, but it is done very much on the basis of partnership and consultation and
joined-up government.
15. I want to ask you about the human rights implications of our
sanctions policy, particularly in relation to Iraq. As you know, the United
Nations Children's Fund, in its 1997 analysis, pointed out that up to 1997
approximately 720 children had died over and above the normal rate as a direct
result of sanctions. In other words, children under five in Iraq are dying
at twice the rate they were five years ago. When the humanitarian aspects of
sanctions are put to Her Majesty's Government, the Government always has the
same response, that it is Saddam Hussein's fault. I can see your officials
nodding. Can I ask the Minister how many children In Iraq have to die before
Her Majesty's Government is willing to revisit this issue, particularly
considering that there has been, even according to UNSCOM, some considerable
compliance by Iraq with sanctions, not full compliance but some compliance?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, the honourable Member says "some compliance", and
I think that is about right, but there has been massive dodging of
humanitarian relief and provisions under the oil-for-food programme.
16. With respect, Minister, what actually -----
(Mr Hain) If I could just respond to the particular point of child
mortality -----
17. Let us talk on the basis of the facts. UNSCOM said, not
apologies for Saddam Hussein, but that the disarmament objective of the
Security Council requirement is possibly near its end in the missile and
chemical weapons area. That reads to me like substantial compliance.
(Mr Hain) If I may make a number of points, because it is a fair
question and I want to answer it, first of all reference was made to child
deaths, any child that dies in Iraq is of concern to me and to the British
Government. It is a matter of record, however, that in Northern Iraq, which
Saddam Hussein does not have control over, child health has been improving
massively and child deaths have been falling massively. Those parts of Iraq,
the great central and southern parts of Iraq, that effectively he does control
and run with an iron rule, the position on human rights and particularly
children has deteriorated massively and it is because he has refused to take
the huge resources from the oil-for-food programme that are provided for under
the humanitarian relief that we want to see introduced, and actually targeted
at precisely those people who are suffering so badly from his dictatorship.
18. I have heard this argument from Ministers before, that northern
Iraq does not have the child deaths that central and southern Iraq have.
(Mr Hain) It is a fact.
19. Yes, but you will be aware that the Executive Director of UNICEF,
Carol Bellamy, said on this matter that there are a number of reasons for this
difference. She said that sanctions have been more easy to evade in the
north, agriculture is easier there, and has been receiving aid for a much
longer period, so it is not just to do with Saddam Hussein. I just want
finally to put a question on this issue which is a question which concerns
many people outside this Committee, particularly in support of their own
party, that one of the problems with the sanctions raising is the time it
takes the United Nations Sanctions Committee to approve quite basic things
like food contracts. On average it takes the Sanctions Committee 66 days to
approve a food contract. Delivery takes 59 days, distribution takes seven
days. As a practical solution to this problem, the Security Council's
Humanitarian Panel proposed in March of this year that there should be a list
of foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, medical, agricultural and educational
equipment that should be drawn up and these items should not have to go before
the Sanctions Committee because that would get rid of that 66 days hold-up
which is causing so much misery in Iraq. Can you tell me what is Her
Majesty's Government's position on the Security Council Humanitarian Panel's
proposal of a list of foodstuffs and so on that would have automatic approval
and not have to go before the Sanctions Committee?
(Mr Hain) That is something that I would happily want to look at how it
might be implemented in a detailed fashion.
20. But you do not know what the Government's response was to that?
The UN Security Council's Humanitarian Panel proposed this in March of this
year. Are you able to tell me what Her Majesty's Government's response was
to that?
(Mr Hain) We are doing a number of things.
21. No: the response to that, Minister.
(Mr Hain) I understand the point you are asking and I am trying to
respond to it. We want to see food and essential medical supplies get
straight through to the people of Iraq, as is provided for under UN provisions
through the oil-for-food programme as straightforwardly and as quickly
possible. That specific question you ask helps address the issue. We are
also, in parallel, seeking to get through at this moment, and are making
considerable progress, extra humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq
through the Security Council's resolution in which Britain is playing a
leading role in seeking agreement on. We are very near a consensus in the
Security Council on that. That would provide for extra humanitarian relief
and that we want to see.
22. I would be grateful if you would write to the Committee and tell
me what was the Government's response to the Security Council's Humanitarian
Panel proposals in March of this year, because obviously the Government's
response would shed some light on where the Government is moving on this
matter.
(Mr Hain) I think that I need to come back to the Committee on that.
I was not in post at that time. It is a fair question and I will give you a
proper written answer to that when I am able to do so. Can I say that I
understand that Iraq has today suspended the oil-for-food programme which I
think is another example of how Saddam Hussein does not actually want the
provisions which lie in the programme to reach the people who are suffering
so badly as a result of his policies.
23. You will be aware, Minister, that much of the monies obtained
under the oil-for-food programme cannot go directly on the food. They have
to go in other payments.
(Mr Hain) But a lot of it is diverted by him from the people it is
supposed to help.
Sir David Madel
24. From what you said, Minister, about wanting to make progress
(which I fully understand) on food distribution, is it impossible to imagine
progress as long as Saddam Hussein is there?
(Mr Hain) It is very difficult to make progress. Indeed, the people of
Iraq who have suffered massively well before the whole issue of sanctions
applied under his rule. It is very difficult to make progress.
25. If the Security Council came up with another resolution on this
matter, would you look to see the Secretary-General of the United Nations
going back to Baghdad, discussing and pointing out to Saddam Hussein that a
further resolution has gone through on this matter and that he, as Secretary-
General, is looking to see Iraq comply?
(Mr Hain) That is obviously a possibility, but the most important thing
is to get unanimity in the Security Council. We have been working very hard
for a number of months on this. We are very close to it, and that would
provide extra humanitarian relief, a much more effective inspection regime for
weapons of mass destruction, and the prospect also of sanctions being
suspended, triggered by a verification of weapons of mass destruction removal
and destruction.
Ms Abbott
26. You will be aware that Amnesty International have said that
current aspects of Her Majesty's Government's asylum policy undermine the
ability of the FCO and DfID to work for human rights and that the Immigration
and Asylum Bill is incompatible with major international human rights
standards. For instance, restrictions or barriers to entry that may obstruct
an individual's flight to safety breach Articles 31 and 33 of the Refugee
Convention, and they cite other examples. Do you agree with Amnesty
International on that?
(Mr Hain) The Home Secretary of course is responsible for asylum
policy.
27. But you are responsible for human rights.
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
28. And Amnesty International are making a human points point.
(Mr Hain) Indeed, but you asked me specifically about the application
of asylum policy and I think that question should be directed to the Home
Secretary.
29. For the avoidance of doubt, Minister, you do not have a view on
asylum policy as it relates to human rights?
(Mr Hain) The Government, of which I am a member, has a very clear view
on asylum policy, but detailed questions on that issue should be directed at
the Home Secretary, because he is responsible for its application.
30. Even as it relates to human rights?
(Mr Hain) I have said what I have to say on that.
Chairman
31. You will recall that Senator Gareth Edwards in Australia said
that the strength of Australia's human rights policy could be blunted by their
policy towards the Aborigines. In the same way do you find that any of what
we are trying to do overseas on human rights is blunted by deficiencies in our
domestic programmes?
(Mr Hain) Nobody is perfect on human rights, least of all Britain. I
have not, in the visits I have made, for example, last week to Mozambique or
India or to the Gulf States or to African countries, found any criticism of
Britain's human rights policy. I have found concerns about the activity here
of dissidents from those countries, but I have not found any concerns about
human rights. I am not saying there are not any, but I have not come across
any.
Dr Starkey
32. Minister, one of the mechanisms by which we try to influence the
human rights behaviour of other governments is by inserting human rights
clauses in agreements between us and them. This Committee, in its previous
report on the South Caucasus, drew attention to the partnership and co-
operation agreements and human rights clauses there and what I think we felt
was the lack of rigour in actually enforcing those once the agreements had
been put into effect. I want to explore that issue further in relation to our
trade agreements with Israel and our monitoring of human rights violations in
the occupied territories and indeed the Palestinian Authority. The European
Union makes regular monitoring reports on human rights violations in the
Occupied Territories. What action do we or the European Union take to follow
up those reports?
(Mr Hain) Can I first of all welcome the recommendations that the
Committee made on the South Caucasus, and we have followed many of them up and
are doing so with the European Union in the partnership and co-operation
agreements which contain specific elements and important elements in my view
of human rights. We will progress those, particularly with some of the worst
offenders, such as Pakistan and Turkey. In terms of the Occupied Territories,
I think that is an important area for us to take forward. We continue to
express bilaterally with the Israeli Government our concerns on human rights
violations, for example my predecessor, the current Secretary of State for
Defence, when he visited in July raised the question of Budere(?), who is a
British National, who had his ID permanently withdrawn, and as a result of
those representations he had it restored. There are still many identification
card abuses in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and when we have the opportunity to
take those up we take them up very rigorously.
33. That example was of a person who is a British citizen and one
would hope that we would be looking after his interests. But in the report
itself it says that we regularly raise with the Israeli Government human
rights issues arising from their policies in the Occupied Territories. It is
obviously important to raise them, but it would be more important if it
actually affected the Israeli Government behaviour. I would like to draw your
attention to what has been happening since the election of the new Labour
Government. There have been improvements in human rights, but on the key
issue of expropriation of Arab land and building of illegal settlements, there
appears to be no improvement whatsoever, apart from the odd cosmetic
demolition of 12 caravans which, in a written question, you admitted included
absolutely no housing units. Twelve have been dismantled. The remaining 30
illegal colonies that were established immediately after the election have
been left and are likely to be incorporated into existing settlements and the
Israeli Government has issued permits for the construction of 1798 housing
units on expropriated Arab land. That does not seem to me that they are
taking any notice whatsoever of our representations. When are we actually
going to act?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, I am not sure whether what my honourable friend
means by "acting", but we do act as vigorously as we can, both in our
bilateral relations with Israel and also in terms of pointing out that of
course settlements are illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention, and do not
assist certainly any progress on settlements, that is to say, any further
settlements do not assist the resolution of the Israeli/Palestine conflict
which we are actively supporting through the Middle East peace process.
Although some settlements have been illegal settlements in the Israeli
Government's eyes have been withdrawn, as a result of the recent Sharm El
Sheikh agreement, we want to see much more progress and quickly on that. It
is a key issue for peace and stability to come to the area.
34. With respect, Minister, the human rights clauses are within a
preferential trade agreement between the European Union and Israel, which is
of enormous financial benefit to Israel. That is an obvious lever. We have
had those human rights clauses within that trade agreement for years. All
that seems to happen is that reports are made, everybody says "tut, tut", and
that is it and we go on giving that preferential trade access regardless of
the fact that those human rights clauses have been violated. That is what I
meant: when are we going to act? Otherwise, what is the point of putting
clauses in trade agreements if we are never going to activate them?
(Mr Hain) I agree that if you have a clause in a trade agreement and
you never activate it then there is not much point in having it. I would want
to see, and we have made it clear in our discussions ministerially from the
Prime Minister through to my level in Government with the Israelis, that we
want to see an end to settlements. We do not think that Palestinian rights
will be addressed unless that issue is tackled, and we want to see it
addressed as a matter of priority within the wider Middle East peace process.
35. How many more settlements will you allow before we actually
activate the trade agreement?
(Mr Hain) There is a very complicated process of negotiation bow
between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which I know we both agree, my
honourable friend and I, should proceed and should reach a satisfactory
conclusion to the two parties. Settlements is an absolutely critical issue
in that, as are refugees, the future of Jerusalem and other matters.
36. Can I raise a different but related issue which is to do with the
publicity given to these human rights violations? We did make this point
previously to the Foreign Secretary that we wished to see the full texts of
EU reports in the field of human rights released, and the response from the
Foreign Secretary was essentially that the reports are confidential
intergovernmental, political reporting, and that there would be a possible
danger of releasing some of this information since it had been passed to our
posts in confidence. I have read all the detailed reports and actually
information that they include, which we do not get until a good six months
after the event anyway, is readily and publicly available through the websites
of Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations. I have got here a
whole load of information from a charity which is active in the West Bank,
information which I believe will appear within the next EU report when it is
eventually compiled. The information is public. The Israeli Government and
the Palestinian Authority know all about it anyway because they are
perpetrating the abuses. It does not come as a surprise to them when the
details come out. It is publicity for human rights abuses which is the best
defence against those abuses, so why are we persisting in not publishing this
information, which effectively gives succour to the governments who are
perpetrating the human rights abuses and act against the organisations within
Israel and the Occupied Territories who are trying to get those into the open?
(Mr Hain) I respect my honourable friend's concern about this and I
share them. The facts involved are often not in dispute. If it is a question
of facts being made public, that is often not in dispute, publicly even. The
issue is, and that is the point that has been raised by the Committee which
she is pressing, the publication, the release in unexpurgated fashion, of the
reporting that we have received by way of telegram and other means. I do not
think that is a good idea because we often get advice, comments, in fact we
almost always do in these reports, which I think would compromise, as I am
sure you will appreciate, Chairman, the position of our representatives in our
missions in post, just as putting our reports on the Internet would defeat the
whole objective of getting private reports from our missions across the world.
Chairman
37. Essentially we are among the governments which block the
publication of those reports in unexpurgated form?
(Mr Hain) We are amongst the governments that want to retain the kind
of private communication from our ambassadors and high commissioners in our
posts around the world that enables them to speak very frankly and openly
about sometimes confidential information that they receive in their contacts
with the government and others in the countries in which they serve. That is
the important point. The facts, which my honourable friend rightly wants
publicly exposed, are often not the problem. The real problem is the comment
and advice which are contained in these reports.
Dr Starkey: Then can we ask you to go back again to the request we
made before and to look at whether the texts of the EU reports cannot be
published with those particularly confidential bits taken out but so that the
full record of the human rights abuses is in the public domain?
Chairman
38. Are you prepared to look at that, Minister?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly look at it, and if we can help we will. Can
I say briefly that it is not in our interests, it is certainly not part of my
objective, to in any way suppress information of abuse of human rights. I
want it ventilated and shouted from the rooftops. I have a strong commitment
in this area, but the specific vehicle for that I do not think is the correct
one.
Chairman: Sir John was actually on that mission.
Sir John Stanley
39. Minister, I think you may wish to look carefully at the text of
your answer to Dr Starkey. My understanding is that the full EU reports do
not contain any advice from ambassadors, whether the British ambassador or any
other EU ambassadors. They are basically a very much fuller factual statement
of the various EU Member States' embassies as to what is happening in terms
of human rights violations, both in Israel and in the area covered by the
Palestinian Authority. It is not, I think, acceptable to suggest to the
Committee that there are grounds for withholding publication of the full
reports because they contain advice to ministers. You may wish to correct
your evidence on that particular point. The issue is simply whether the very
much more detailed reports can be put into the public domain. You may agree
that what is currently put into the public domain is extremely skimpy, scanty
version of what is available in the full report. The Committee is asking you
as to whether the British Government in this very key area would give further
consideration to publishing the full factual report.
(Mr Hain) And I have said I will give further consideration to that.
I do not want to see anything other than full transparency, but it is my
understanding and my advice that all such reports contain comment and
analysis, so I do not think I want to correct my evidence in that respect.
If the question is of ventilating and getting out before the public eye every
single bit of evidence of human rights abuses discovered through this route
or others, I am all for that.
Mr Chidgey
40. In the year report on foreign policy and human rights on page 11
it is confidently stated that "the liberation of Kosovo and the message it
sent to regimes that disregard human rights will come to be seen as a defining
moment in modern history." I think we need to challenge that, Minister,
because I think it is the case that the only difference that most people will
see between the barbarism of the activities of Milosevic in Kosovo and what
is now being perpetrated by the Russian generals in Chechnya is the failure
in many people's eyes of the western nations to react in any positive way.
In fact, the present situation in Chechnya suggests that regimes will continue
to disregard human rights, and I would like very much to hear on behalf of the
Committee what you might have to say about this in your particular brief for
protecting human rights.
(Mr Hain) First of all, can I assume from what the honourable Member
says that he strongly supports the strong stand that the Government took in
Kosovo against ethnic cleansing and -----
41. It is not really, is it, Minister? This is so much hot air. You
have made three key demands, but that has not materially affected the plight
of the population of Chechnya in terms of the action by the Russians in the
way that they are perpetrating that particular action.
(Mr Hain) Chairman, I just want to get on the record that I assume that
he does support the action we took in Kosovo.
Mr Chidgey: We are questioning you, Mr Hain. You are not questioning
me.
Ms Abbott
42. We ask the questions.
(Mr Hain) If I am allowed to answer questions I will do so. I am
assuming that, and therefore the issue is whether we can take similar action
in Chechnya. I totally deplore Russia's action in Chechnya, unequivocally.
The Prime Minister has made that clear, the Foreign Secretary has made that
clear, both in bilateral representations and publicly, so there is absolutely
no disagreement on that. The issue is what can be done about it. We were able
to intervene in Kosovo. I do not think anybody is suggesting the same thing
could happen in Chechnya. However, what we did at Istanbul at the OSCE Summit
is, against President Yeltsin's wishes, against his very firm resistance, we
got agreement at that Summit that the OSCE would send a mission, that it would
visit Chechnya, that Russia would engage in a consultative dialogue on what
was going on there. That does not produce the wham-bam instant action that
perhaps the honourable Member is asking for, but could I ask how he
practically thinks he -----
Mr Chidgey
43. Can I, Minister, respond to your comments on that. I have never
for one minute suggested that there was a wham-bam reaction in Kosovo. I seem
to remember the this Government was somewhat late in making any decision on
what to do in Kosovo. The point I want to stress, Minister, and tease out
with you is that it seems to me that the Foreign Office is exercising
different policies on human rights depending on the particular country we are
trying to advise or influence on human rights. I can understand the
differences myself, of course I can, but what I want is some clarity now from
the Foreign Office on its policy and to let us know whether or not it is
taking the actions that I consider to be appropriate in dealing with the
differences in cultures and the differences in the magnitude of the countries
where human rights violations are taking place. It is not good enough just
to turn round and say that we have made demands to Russia. We know very well
that demands are one thing; action is another. I want to hear from the
Minister how he believes that some positive action is going to be taken using
the influence that we do have through our own councils and those
internationally to bring Russia into the fold as far as human rights are
concerned.
(Mr Hain) I have just given a concrete example of that in which we
played a prominent role in the OSCE Summit in Istanbul against Russia's
wishes. In terms of the general point which the honourable Member makes, I
readily accept that in respect of intervention to curb human rights abuses,
we are not able to do exactly the same thing in different circumstances. Of
course we are not, much as I would like to do so.
44. Is it not the question that we are not able to achieve them.
(Mr Hain) We are either not able to or it would be impractical to.
What distinguishes us from our predecessors in government is that we try to
put human rights constantly at the top of the international agenda. We have
succeeded in many respects and I will happily go through all of those, but I
am not suggesting that there is a uniform, blanket policy or tactic or
strategy that can be applied in every single country equally with every single
other country where there are undoubted human rights abuses as in Chechnya
across the world.
45. I understand; of course I do, but the Minister has set out the
Government's actions and their three demands that they have made in Istanbul.
Can the Minister tell us what sort of forecast he has of those demands
creating some positive action from Russia in meeting our desires for human
rights?
(Mr Hain) I am hopeful that the Russian Government will respond because
it has signed up to that.
46. What sort of timescale are we talking about?
(Mr Hain) I am hopeful that it will respond because it has signed up to
the agreement that was made in Istanbul. If it defaults on that in any way,
and I have already condemned the appalling levels of atrocity and attacks on
the Chechnyans by the Russian Government, there are 220,000 refugees who have
been the victims of that, which is unacceptable, sooner rather than later
because the Government of Russia has signed up to it.
Chairman
47. Have they not said in terms that they will solve the military
matter before they proceed to the discussions?
(Mr Hain) I am not speaking for the Russian Government. I want it to
fulfil its obligations under the OSCE agreement that it reluctantly was forced
to sign up to, partly as a result of British Government pressure in Istanbul
last week.
Sir Peter Emery
48. Mr Hain, I do not wish to get into a political argument of which
side is more interested in human rights than the other, and that is between
our political parties, I mean. Let us look at humanitarian intervention.
Your officials gave evidence to this Committee only last week defending
absolutely the action of the Government in the intervention in Kosovo. I
happen to agree that it was right we should have gone in, and I happen to
agree that the overriding of the humanitarian situation in Kosovo was
unbelievable. None the less, there are many people who argue that it was
illegal for us to have taken that action. I do not happen to support that,
but one has to accept that that argument exists and you will have heard a
member of my party arguing that on the floor of the House only yesterday.
What action therefore is the Government taking with the United Nations to try
and get better established the legal position of intervention being allowed
when there is gross humanitarian interference of any population anywhere and
to be able to protect the humanitarian position of peoples wherever they may
be living?
(Mr Hain) I agree with the honourable Member that that is an important
point, and indeed the Prime Minister last night laid out some principles about
intervention following on the Secretary-General of the United Nations' speech
to the General Assembly in September, which we broadly welcomed, and we are
currently within the United Nations context working on a series of proposals
on how the practicalities, both legally and in resource terms, could be taken
forward so that we get as consistent a policy on humanitarian intervention as
it is possible to do across the world, preferably under the UN's auspices.
49. Can you tell us, Minister, what those recommendations or
proposals are?
(Mr Hain) I am not in a position to do so at the moment. It is very
early days, but we are taking a leading role in this and we very much welcome
the Secretary-General's initiative in September in order to take this issue
further.
50. But would it not be helpful for the Government to be able to have
absolute support on the action they were taking and therefore surely it makes
sense to publish the action that you are taking as soon as possible?
(Mr Hain) At the appropriate time, and I realise how tempting it is to
have support from the Foreign Affairs Committee which the honourable Member
is kindly offering, we will of course make it public, and it will become a
matter of public debate and not simply private diplomacy, but you will
appreciate that it should happen at the appropriate time.
51. I am always a little worried with the bureaucratic phrase which,
Mr Hain, you have condemned at other times, of "the appropriate time". When
the hell is "the appropriate time"?
(Mr Hain) We want to see this initiative of ours work, and others are
also working on the whole matter, and part of making it work is allowing our
international partners in this exercise, and those with whom we have to seek
multilateral or bilateral agreements, to see our proposals. It is not a
question of being at all defensive or shy about them. We want an
international debate because there are lots of countries in the United Nations
who will oppose them.
Chairman
52. Minister, in his speech to the UN General Assembly Mr Kofi Annan
said that such intervention could only happen with the approval of the
Security Council. You said you approved of his speech. Do you accept that
part of it?
(Mr Hain) I think that is an ideal which we all ought to sign up to.
Whether it is always practical, as we saw in Kosovo, where people are
literally being murdered by the minute, is another matter, but it is precisely
because the Kosovos of this world and the East Timors, where we acted very
speedily and honourably to get the United Nations' backing for the support for
the people of East Timor, that to get a consistent framework if we possibly
can that we are working so hard on this and have welcomed his speech, as you
say.
Sir John Stanley
53. Minister, I want to follow the same point. I am concerned about
what the Government's position is not in relation to policy on intervention
but in relation to legality. Can you explain to us what made the intervention
in Kosovo legal as far as the British Government's view is concerned?
(Mr Hain) I think the honourable Member will find that this has been
consistently addressed and replied to by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime
Minister and others. We have taken advice, we have not been challenged on
this, that we are absolutely certain that it was legal.
54. But would you answer the question?
(Mr Hain) I thought I had.
55. No, not at all. What were the features of the Kosovo
intervention which made it legal?
(Mr Hain) The features of the Kosovo intervention which made it legal
were a combination of the genocide and the ethnic cleansing which was being
perpetrated, the way in which we, together with the US, sought ourselves
agreement and pursued other areas in order to get it. That was the essential
environment in which the legality was set.
56. The legality arose out of a judgement in relation to the scale
of the humanitarian disaster.
(Mr Hain) That was undoubtedly one factor, not an exclusive one, but
one factor.
57. I am not clear that there was any other factor. There was no UN
Resolution cover or anything like that. Was there any other factor which in
your view made it legal?
(Mr Hain) There are a number of other Security Council Resolutions
which bore down upon Slobodan Milosevic and the Government of the Federal
Republic in Yugoslavia's murderous activities in Kosovo and elsewhere in the
region which also provided us with the shelter under which we thought that
that intervention was not just justifiable on humanitarian grounds but
justifiable in terms of international law as well. I note that there has been
no successful attempt to challenge that. It seems to me to speak for itself.
58. But you would agree that none of the United Nations Security
Council Resolutions in any way authorised military intervention in Kosovo?
(Mr Hain) None of them specifically did so. Many of them had a bearing
on it and none of them either condemned it.
59. Would you say then that the issue of legality would appear, as
far as the British Government's position is concerned, to largely relate to
the scale of the human rights violations?
(Mr Hain) Not exclusively, but obviously, if people are being killed
under a systematic programme of ethnic cleansing and genocide, as was
happening in Kosovo, and also of course in Bosnia before that, then that is
a n important factor. It is very unusual to get action of this kind and when
it occurs, clearly there are often extraordinary circumstances. I am not
suggesting it is exclusive. If there had not been as it were any shelter
provided by previous United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I think the
legality matter might have been much more difficult to justify.
60. I do not expect you to do so in front of the Committee now, but
could you provide the Committee with the text of the particular paragraphs of
the Resolutions you are referring to which, in your words, provided a degree
of legal cover?
(Mr Hain) I will happily do that and reply more fully to the points
that the honourable Member has raised.
61. Do you consider that in other areas where genocidal human rights
violations have taken place, for example, in some situations in the Central
Lakes area in Africa, Cambodia, the same criteria, leaving aside the issue of
practicality, there was prima facie a legal right of international military
intervention in those areas as well?
(Mr Hain) There may well have been. I think one of the problems, say
for example, in the Great Lakes, where the crisis there exercises me greatly
in respect of my African policy responsibilities, is that it has been
extremely difficult to get the same international concern focused on the
democratic Republic in Congo, the Great Lakes' abuses of human rights and the
genocide, whether in Rwanda or the problems in Burundi or whatever, as it has
been on our doorstep in Europe. There are obvious reasons which we could all
no doubt agree upon, but it is a matter of concern that the international
conscience is lobsided in this respect, and it is precisely in order to try
and get it more evenly established that we are addressing this question of
humanitarian intervention with other members of the United Nations,
particularly in the Security Council.
Sir David Madel
62. Have I got it right on the Government's thinking, that if there
is a demand for international action by members of the United Nations, yet it
is blocked by the Security Council because somebody uses the veto, is the
Government looking for greater recourse to the General Assembly of the United
Nations which does have the power in the united peace resolutions to authorise
military intervention?
(Mr Hain) That is one factor which will have to be addressed as part of
a consistent and sound and legally justifiable approach to intervention, but
I do not want to prejudice the debate around that in which we are taking a
leading role at this point.
Mr Rowlands
63. Minister, by that definition you have described it means that
even one or a small number of states can define themselves a situation as
being of such a horrific humanitarian kind that they will have a right to
intervene. If that is the case, surely the Vietnamese intervention to
overthrow Pol Pot, for example, would have fallen within such jurisdiction and
could be claimed to be internationally legally right and correct?
(Mr Hain) I understand the point that my honourable friend is raising,
and I understand the difficulties of the whole matter. We acted in the case
of Kosovo because we thought it was the right thing to do and we thought we
had international right and law on our side, but the point that he is making,
whether retrospectively in respect of Vietnam and Pol Pot there are other
examples we could seek to hold up, is precisely why we need a considered and
serious discussion followed by, hopefully, international agreement to underpin
the basis for all of this. I think with the end of the Cold War this is
becoming an increasingly prominent area that the international community must
address.
64. I certainly agree with that. I am just saying that the
definition that we have heard repeatedly presented to this Committee, that any
state has a right to define a humanitarian situation has occurred in another
state of such sufficient horror that it has a right to intervene, certainly
could apply in the case of the Vietnamese and Pol Pot. Pol Pot was a
genocidal regime that was murdering millions of people and a neighbouring
state under your definition would have a right to intervene in that situation.
(Mr Hain) I am not saying that you would have a unilateral right simply
to intervene wherever you liked, but I am agreeing with my honourable friend
that in the face of Pol Pot's genocidal activities the international community
must be sympathetic to the countries that sought to do something about it.
65. Let me turn to the policy of constructive engagement. You will
probably from your reading note that in fact our last Committee's report had
some observations on this. Those observations arose directly out of the
situation in Indonesia where the previous human rights support, the view that
the Government has followed constructive engagement with relations to the
Suharto regime, it was highlighted and illustrated as an excellent example of
constructive engagement. In fact, at the very same time as we were claiming
that such constructive engagement was taking place, the people of Indonesia
were disengaging very forcefully from the regime and indeed brought the regime
down. Many of the members of this Committee felt, and we said so in our last
report, that we did not think this was the best illustration of constructive
engagement and therefore we have been much more interested to find out the
criteria and principles which underlie it. I have read chapter 3 of the White
Paper but can you give me some key examples of countries where you would say
constructive engagement is now at the centre of our human rights policy
relations with them?
(Mr Hain) There is a whole number. Incidentally, I think that this
Labour Government, at least in respect of Indonesia and East Timor, has got
a very honourable record in, first of all, getting democracy established, or
democratic elections at any rate, in such an important state as Indonesia,
and, secondly, giving the people of East Timor the right to determine their
own destiny, which they were denied for over a quarter of a century, often
with Western complicity including British complicity. So perhaps I can make
that point. However, in terms of constructive engagement now, I could mention
a number of countries. I recently returned from a visit to India, for
example, where there are concerns which have been voiced in Parliament and
elsewhere about attacks on Christians, about bonded labour, about the
situation in Kashmir, and I was able, because of our good relationship with
India, the Indian Government, to address those at the highest level in a frank
way and to meet with some positive responses.
66. So India would be an example. Would Saudi Arabia be another
example?
(Mr Hain) Saudi Arabia I visited a few weeks ago and again at a private
level, because I think that is more fruitful in terms of getting results, I
was able to address issues of human rights in the Saudi Arabian context too.
67. You say "privately because that is more fruitful", is that
because that is an absolute assessment of how best to persuade a government
to change, alter or amend its human rights policy, or is it the fact that we
have huge interests in Saudi Arabia and huge British interests with India
which is more likely to determine the policy of constructive engagement rather
the human rights issue?
(Mr Hain) Especially with my hon. friend's experience in foreign policy
at ministerial level, he will know there is always a balance to be struck, but
we as a Government have put human rights much higher up the international
agenda than ever before, as I am sure he will agree. It is a question of how
we can best achieve better human rights in any particular country, and it is
not simply a question of whether we have good or extensive defence contracts,
as in Saudi Arabia, or good commercial relationships as India's second biggest
trading partner, though that bears on it. It is what you can actually
practically achieve. I think we have an honourable record on that. Compare
that, by the way, with very tough action we have taken on Burma, the very
tough action we have taken on Iraq, the very tough action we have taken on the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where we do think that open, ultimate
sanctions and pressure of that very open and public kind is the best thing to
do.
68. Sceptics will say, surely, that Burma is in a sense an easy
decision to make, because we have minimal interests there, the regime is
particularly awful and therefore it is a pariah state almost and therefore you
can speak forcefully. However, it is the decision of going from that to the
sort of private nods and winks and nudges which in fact characterise our human
rights policy perhaps in some other countries like Saudi Arabia which
interests us, it is how you decide this gradation of response and pressure.
(Mr Hain) I think it is a fair question and it is not easy to give a
universally applicable blanket answer to it. It is where we think we can best
get results and what I do maintain absolutely clearly, Chairman, and defend
our record on this, is that we consistently raise human rights issues with
virtually every country we visit. I have done so I think without exception,
if I am right, with every country I have visited in the period since I have
become Minister of State at the Foreign Office. It is not often a comfortable
thing to do. Our ambassadors and high commissioners do not often shout from
the rooftops when we do it because they want to have as good relations,
naturally, with their governments as other countries which do not talk about
human rights in their bilateral relations, but we nevertheless pursue it and
we pursue it vigorously.
69. Let us take another country like Zimbabwe, for example. Is that
an example of constructive engagement in terms of human rights?
(Mr Hain) Zimbabwe is very difficult at the moment and we have
consistently - and I have personally - raised human rights issues with the
Zimbabwean Government and will continue to do so. It does the Zimbabwean
Government and its people no credit at all to be seen not to be pursuing the
same kind of ideals in respect of human rights today as motivated the struggle
for freedom, which President Mugabe amongst others led in Zimbabwe.
70. Is that going to be done privately or are we going to be more
publicly forceful in the case of Zimbabwe?
(Mr Hain) In a lot of countries we have a combination of public and
private, and I think this will apply to Zimbabwe and it will apply to other
countries. We are not, as it were, hiding our light under a bushel in this
respect and there is a growing concern, both within the Commonwealth and in
Britain, about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwean
Government knows that very well.
71. When did we last publicly speak, as forcefully as possible, about
the rights of assembly, the rights of freedom of expression, the right to
worship and observe one's own religion in somewhere like Saudi Arabia?
(Mr Hain) I certainly raised that privately with the ministers, as I
have said. I have not in any other context publicly said anything about it
since I have become a minister with responsibility for policy in Saudi Arabia,
but there is nothing secret about our position. We want to see more advance
on human rights throughout the Gulf states and I think it is in the interests
of all of the Gulf countries, since you mention them, to do that. There have
been advances, including in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Arabian Assembly now is
becoming much more active on these issues and I was able to discuss that both
at a ministerial level and in terms of individual members of the Assembly.
72. Did you meet opposition groups when you visited Saudi Arabia?
(Mr Hain) I met members of the Assembly, some of whom I guess would
class themselves as opposition groups, yes.
73. We have had policies in the past where in fact ministers and
indeed embassies actually create links and arrangements with dissident groups,
certainly that was true in Central and Eastern Europe but it is also true
elsewhere. Is that an intrinsic part of human rights policy in the context
of constructive engagement?
(Mr Hain) Yes.
74. They have developed regular and proper contact with dissenting
groups?
(Mr Hain) Yes, and do so both willingly and enthusiastically. As I did
in India, in Mozambique, in Uganda and a number of other countries which I
visited, I engage very often where there is a Human Rights Commission
established which we have supported in financial terms and encouraged in
political and diplomatic terms.
75. In China?
(Mr Hain) In China we have engaged very strongly with the Chinese
Government and I think have got some results to show for it. Despite the
continuing abuses of human rights which exist in China, yes, I do think we
have got some practical results to show for our programme of practical action.
76. At what point does one come to a conclusion? The Committee felt
we were late in deciding the Suharto regime was beyond the pale and was
therefore incapable of reform as a result of constructive engagement.
(Mr Hain) I agree with you.
77. At what point does one decide the policy of sotto voce, private
conservation, all the things you mentioned which are the ingredients of
constructive engagement, has run its course and there should be much more
public and forceful statement about the situation combined with support with
others of the European Union and elsewhere? At what point does one make this
decision? We got it wrong in the case of the Suharto regime, I think.
(Mr Hain) I agree with my hon. friend that we got it wrong; or rather
the British Government got it wrong, I do not think this current Government
got it wrong. I think the simple answer to the point is when you are getting
nowhere, and we were clearly getting nowhere with Indonesia and in other
respects. If I can give other examples, in the Angolan context, despite the
strong commercial interests of British companies, when other countries might
not have said anything publicly, I strongly condemned the imprisonment of an
Angolan journalist which I regard as completely unacceptable. In the case of
Cameroon, we have also taken a strong stand on that. Where we feel private
representations are getting nowhere, not only are we prepared to go public in
a way which often makes it uncomfortable for all concerned, but we are
prepared to take it up at the international level as well.
78. You do not think China has reached that stage? You believe that
you have made a sufficient impact on Chinese human rights to continue to
justify that policy as opposed to being much more forceful and adopting
resolutions of the kind governments used to adopt on China in human rights
terms?
(Mr Hain) Yes, indeed, I do. China has signed up to a number of UN
covenants and conventions which it previously did not do. There are
widespread human rights abuses in China, there is no question about that. I
met Wei Jingsheng on the eve of the state visit and discussed those very
frankly with him and had a good meeting with him and asked him to stay in
touch with me, despite discomfort from the Chinese Government that I was
meeting him at all. So we will continue to engage at every level with China,
but at the moment there is more progress being made than through any other
alternative course.
Chairman
79. The argument the Government used for not joining with other EU
countries in having a China Resolution at the UN Commission was that there
were a number of positive factors - the Mary Robinson visit, the signing of
various UN conventions and so on. Is it the view of the Government that since
that decision the human rights situation in China has improved or
deteriorated?
(Mr Hain) The important point about that decision was that previously
Chinese Governments had been able to defeat resolutions of that kind in the
context of the Commission, which they then exploited to show they had a good
human rights record. That does not seem to me to advance the case which we
all share, I guess, around this table - and I know you and I do - about
advancing human rights in China. That is why we have adopted that position,
it simply does not get anywhere, in fact it ends up with you being two steps
back from where you wanted to be before it was tabled in the first place.
80. In respect of Saudi Arabia, for example, there have been
suggestions that we have been extremely supine even in matters affecting our
own personnel in, I believe, agreeing last Christmas not to have Christian
services at the embassy. Is that still the policy of the Government?
(Mr Hain) I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I am not aware of that particular
incident but I will write to you about it.
Mr Rowlands
81. Can I ask your officials? Is that so?
(Mr Brenton) I honestly do not know. It sounds unlikely, I have to
say, but I will check it.
82. Finally on Saudi Arabia, on page 70 in one of the claims of the
achievement of constructive engagement, it is said that the Saudis intend to
accede to two major conventions, including the International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights. Acceding to them is one thing, implementing them
is another. If Saudi Arabia accede to the International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights, what in practical terms will that mean for people who
oppose or wish to observe a different religion within Saudi Arabia?
(Mr Hain) First of all, we have actually offered the Saudi Government
assistance with ensuring that that can be practically implemented and to have
a dialogue and a discussion about the practicalities of that. If we found
that that was getting nowhere, obviously I would be very worried about it.
Sir John Stanley
83. Minister, for the record, could you confirm that the United
Nations Human Rights Covenants which China has signed have not been ratified
by the Chinese Government and therefore they are under no legal obligation to
bring them into law in their country?
(Mr Hain) I think that is probably right. I will need to check on that
but I think that is probably right. But, as you know, there are two stages
in any international treaty or covenant or agreement of that kind. First of
all, you sign it. Second, you bring it into force in your own country by
ratifying it.
84. What steps are the British Government taking to achieve a near-
term ratification of the covenants by the Chinese Government?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly pursue that and let the Committee know,
because I think it is a very fair question.
85. So you will give us a written response on that point?
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
86. Can I return to the question which the Chairman asked a few
moments ago which you did not answer? He asked you whether, following the
whole series of major international visits to China as part of the
constructive engagement policy - the visit of President Clinton, the visit of
Prime Minister Blair, the visit of the United Nations Human Rights
Commissioner, Mary Robinson - the human rights position in China in the
British Government's view had improved or deteriorated.
(Mr Hain) I think there have been some progressive movements and I
think there have been others which have not been so. So it is a situation
where we are promoting and encouraging progress. Mary Robinson's visit was
a very important part of that; it had previously not happened. The signing
up to those covenants had not occurred and we will continue to encourage that.
87. I think you will find the signing of the covenants actually did
occur prior to the visits to which I referred, and I would also put it to you
that the answer which you have just given, I would suggest, is wholly at
variance with the detailed reports which have come out into the international
community both from the media and from international human rights
organisations which have universally pointed to a significant deterioration
in human rights in China over the last six months to a year. Would you not
agree that is the case, that there is a whole series of people who have now
been put into jail for considerable lengths of time and very, very repressive
measures taken to remove all sorts of different groups who are judged by the
Chinese authorities as representing some form of political threat to them?
(Mr Hain) Yes, I would, and that is unacceptable, which is why we
continue to raise it at prime ministerial level, minister of state level and
diplomatic level with the Chinese Government.
88. Could you explain to the Committee how you can produce an Annual
Report on Human Rights in which reference to Tibet is erased as surely as the
visibility of Tibet was erased during the recent Chinese Premier's visit?
(Mr Hain) I am not aware of any references to Tibet having been
deliberately erased. I am not, as it were, passing the buck on this matter
but I was not in post at that time, however I do not think there would be any
desire on behalf of our human rights policy department or the ministers
responsible to erase any reference to Tibet in any kind of attempt to dodge
the issue of Tibet, which remains something we are very concerned about.
89. Could you explain then why there is no reference,
extraordinarily, to Tibet in the Human Rights Report you have just published?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, it is a fair question and I need to give you a
proper answer to it.
90. I think the proper answer is quite clear, there is no reference
and I am amazed you are unaware of that but ---
(Mr Hain) It is not that I am unaware of it, I am unaware of the
construction you are putting on it. I do not think there would be any
interest or desire on behalf of this Government and the Foreign Office to
erase Tibet as a concern, which it remains, on human rights on our part and
internationally.
91. Are you not dismayed that there is no reference to Tibet in your
Human Rights Report?
(Mr Hain) (After a pause) I am told there is a reference.
92. Good.
(Mr Hain) I thought that was the case. I think you will probably find
it is on page 28.
Mr Rowlands
93. Then the index is poor because there is no reference in the index
to Tibet.
(Mr Hain) I am responsible for many things in the Foreign Office, but
indexing the Annual Report is not yet one of them, though no doubt officials
might try to load it on me as well!
Sir John Stanley: Minister, we will obviously study that and if the
assumption which I made, which was based on reading the index, is factually
incorrect I can only offer you my apology. As a Committee we shall want to
look very carefully at what you do say about Tibet. I do not know whether,
for the record, anybody can read what it says?
Dr Starkey: "Agreeing to an EU Troika Ambassadors' trip to Tibet in
May 1998." Page 28.
Sir John Stanley: If that is the only reference ---
Chairman: On the face of it, it is an historic reference.
Sir John Stanley
94. It is fairly inadequate, if that is the only reference which we
had the utmost difficulty in finding.
(Mr Hain) Chairman, there are a couple of pages on China around that
part of the Report in which Tibet features. I fully understand the
Committee's concerns about Tibet and I welcome your Committee wanting to
return to the subject and we will want to engage with you about it because
Tibet remains a matter of concern for me in respect of human rights as it
clearly does to the hon. member.
Sir David Madel
95. There is a danger that the Middle East peace process will stall
because of Israel's policy over settlements in the Occupied Territories.
America has long had very close economic and diplomatic relationships with
Israel, do you think America could do more to persuade Israel to change its
policy?
(Mr Hain) I think there are a number of comments which could be made in
respect of other countries' policies, but what is important at the moment -
and I am not trying to dodge your question - is nothing is done to prejudice
successful progress being made on the Middle East peace talks which are
essentially bilateral negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
We want to see the settlements issue addressed in that as a small start, and
in some respects it is three steps forward, two steps back, as has been made
under the Sharm El Sheikh Agreement, along with the release of prisoners,
redeployment, the safe passage being opened and a number of other questions
which have featured on the human rights agenda in respect of the Israeli
Government's policy. So I do not want to say anything which would prejudice
the successful outcome of those negotiations, but I do not complain about you
raising the matter.
96. I appreciate they are bilateral in the sense at last Israel and
the Palestinians are trying to negotiate a settlement, but America is very
much hovering in the background for obvious reasons. Why does not the
European Union hover a bit more in the background? We have immense diplomatic
knowledge and skill in the Middle East and yet I get the impression we have
rather said to America, "That's it, you sort that one."
(Mr Hain) No, I do not accept that. That may be the impression the
hon. member has but Britain is repeatedly and enthusiastically urged - and we
respond - by those involved in the Middle East, either directly as countries
both neighbouring Israel or those with an interest in it, to get engaged, and
we do so. We have an historic responsibility, we have a special relationship
with all of those involved, and we do not sit by and watch while others engage
more actively, but it is undoubtedly the case that the Americans, both in
achieving the break-through which produced Sharm El Sheikh and in other areas,
such as the question of the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, the question of
Lebanon and so on, have been playing a leading role.
Sir David Madel: I am not suggesting we do it immediately, I hope it
will not ever happen, but there could come a point when we will have to
publicly disagree with the United States. There could be a point when we will
have to, and if we do have to, can I have your assurance that the Government
will not shrink from having a public disagreement with the United States if
necessary on this issue?
Chairman
97. That is a hostage to fortune!
(Mr Hain) Chairman, I understand why the hon. member is putting this
question, but I simply have to respond, and it will disappoint him, that I do
not want to say anything, and nor should the British Government do anything,
which prejudices the successful outcome of the current negotiations. However,
I want to assure him that that does not mean that we are, as it were, passive
by-standers in this process. We are engaged extremely actively. I met
President Arafat only the week before last, having been asked to do so, with
the Prime Minister in No. 10. We are engaged in a detailed way. I am seeing
the Egyptian Foreign Minister later this week. We are not standing by and
doing nothing, on the contrary, we are very busily engaged.
Mr Chidgey
98. Minister, can I bring your mind back to constructive engagement,
which we were discussing a few minutes ago? I wonder if you could reflect for
a moment and tell us whether there have been times when the Government's
policy of constructive engagement has clashed with your desire to pursue an
ethical foreign policy?
(Mr Hain) The point about constructive engagement, as I think Amnesty
recognised, is that you do what you can wherever you can to advance things in
a practical way. That does not mean, as Amnesty also recognised in its 1999
Report, that if you cannot do everything, you do nothing. What we have done
more than any other previous British Government, I would submit - and I will
be held up to scrutiny on this - in terms of constructive engagement is to
push the human rights agenda up the international policy arena.
99. Can I take one particular example and I would like to hear your
views on it? We talked at some stage about China, at some length in fact, and
the fact that the UN Human Rights Covenants had not been ratified. I can
understand that, obviously. Are you happy, or are you not disquieted, by the
fact that America has persuaded China it will work with China to sign up to
the WTO without some trade-off perhaps on accepting human rights as well?
Should this not have been a lever we could have used, which is very much in
China's interests, to pursue human rights more strongly?
(Mr Hain) I am invited to speak for the American Government, as I was
before, and that is not a job I hold.
100. Okay. Putting that to one side ---
(Mr Hain) And it is not one I am actively canvassing either.
101. Can I have your view in that case?
(Mr Hain) I do not want to see human rights abuses occur in China or
any other country in the world. I am strongly committed against them. We
will do all we can, and continue to do it, including influencing our allies
to that effect.
102. I do think this is very important. There is no mention made
in your Report ---
(Mr Hain) Is that in the index or the Report itself!
103. No, it is the Report.
(Mr Hain) I will take your word for it.
Mr Chidgey: So I am advised - using a ministerial comment here! Why
is there no mention made of the role of international financial institutions
such as the EBRD, the IMF and the World Bank in promoting human rights? What
representations have the FCO made, for example, to these institutions about
the actions you would wish to see them taking to promote human rights? I can
see this linking with WTO, with the benefits of countries such as China having
access to those trading organisations, and similarly I would have expected the
Government to recognise the influence of the international funding
organisations to bring this to bear.
Chairman
104. That was a point we made, Minister, in our Report on the
Caucasus, that there was leverage both in the EU and other international
financial institutions to have some conditionality on human rights.
(Mr Hain) That was indeed a report which your Committee made, Mr
Chairman, and it is a point which I am strongly sympathetic to. I think the
points you made about the EBRD were well-taken, and in respect of the South
Caucasus, which I think was referred to by my hon. friend the member for
Milton Keynes earlier on, we have actually taken active steps within EU
agreements with South Caucasus regimes to make sure that human rights are a
conditional matter and that they are actively pursued. In respect of
international financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, I think
increasingly the question of good governance is coming up the agenda, because
it is often not possible to get effective economic policies in place unless
there is full transparency, unless there is good governance, and unless you
are absolutely satisfied that the financial support that could be forthcoming
is not filched away through other dubious means. But I am advised - if I
could borrow your phrase - that on page 45 of the Report there is actually a
reference to IFIs.
Mr Chidgey
105. One final point on this section of constructive engagement.
Can I ask, Minister, what sort of criticisms you receive about the British
Government's human rights record when you are raising these concerns with
other countries and their human rights records? For example, have either the
Bulger case or the Asylum and Immigration Bill been raised at posts and, if
so, how have you and how do you respond?
(Mr Hain) I have not myself had anybody raise in the course of my
visits abroad or in my meetings bilaterally with ambassadors, high
commissioners or foreign ministers visiting me in the Foreign Office, in the
time I have been in office, any such question. I am not saying there are not
such concerns, or ones which could not be fairly put to me, but I have not had
any raised with me. As I say, the concerns have usually been the other way
around, wanting more draconian action taken against dissidents or "terrorists"
who are perceived by the governments concerned to be living here.
Mr Illsley
106. Mr Hain, first of all let me apologise for not being here for
the whole meeting. A constituency issue has arisen this morning which has
meant I have been in and out of the meeting.
(Mr Hain) No problem at all.
107. My questions are on the British Council and the BBC World
Service which, as you know, this Committee takes a close interest in. In our
earlier reports into foreign policy and human rights we made three
recommendations in relation to the World Service and the British Council, and
unfortunately two of them call for increased funding. To deal with the
British Council first, we recommended that the Foreign Office formulate a
specific programme for involving the British Council in the implementation of
the Government's human rights policies worldwide. Could I ask whether you are
happy with what the British Council are doing in relation to the promotion of
human rights initiatives?
(Mr Hain) First of all, we have actually, both ourselves and the
Department for International Development, worked with the British Council in
the Occupied Territories and funded them to address human rights questions in
the Occupied Territories and Israeli Government policy in that respect. I
very much value the work of the British Council abroad. I make it part of my
business as a minister to visit the British Council wherever I can. I did so
in India last week, for example; I have done so in the Gulf states and in
Africa. I think the British Council's work is often under-valued. I think
it is very, very important for Britain, I would like to see it funded even
more generously - if I am allowed to say that as a Government Minister -
because it is at the forefront of Britain's relationship with other countries,
whether it is English language teaching or whether, as I saw in India,
promoting a very imaginative programme of links on British science and
information technology to the people and companies of India.
108. We understood that the British Council plans human rights
initiatives with the Government on a country-by-country basis. I think you
partly answered my question when you referred to the Occupied Territories,
because I was going to ask whether the Government do ask the British Council
to intervene in specific countries and whether the Government have the view
that perhaps a more selective approach to countries where there is a more
obvious problem is one which should be adopted?
(Mr Hain) I would not want the British Council to "intervene" as such,
but it could help, and does do so, with specific projects, as indeed in the
Occupied Territories. But I think the priority should be on its main work,
where it engages on a whole series of policy areas. Can I say that I think
we as Britain sadly neglected over the years the issue of getting more and
more students to come back to study in Britain, as traditionally was the case,
because they are very often the generation of opinion-formers who identify
with Britain and that fell by the wayside a little while ago and we are busily
pushing it up the agenda, as the Prime Minister asked for recently.
109. I think "intervene" is probably the wrong word. As you said,
"raise various issues in relation to human rights" would have been better
phraseology. Just to press you on the funding, that was a very brave and
forthright statement that funding should be increased ---
(Mr Hain) An aspiration!
110. Is there any possibility of the aspiration becoming a
reality?
(Mr Hain) I think that is a matter which needs to be addressed to a
number of other members of the Cabinet, and I would prefer to leave it at
that.
111. Turning now to the World Service, the recommendations which
this Committee made in relation to the BBC World Service were the possibility
for selective funding by the Government of additional rebroadcasting
facilities specifically for human rights purposes. The other recommendation
was that the Foreign Office opens discussions with BBC World Television as to
how that organisation might contribute to the raising of awareness of human
rights issues, again in countries where human rights are in the greatest need
of being strengthened. We saw on a recent visit to Russia the benefit of
rebroadcasting when we were told that the BBC World Service was able to use
Russian facilities to rebroadcast further into that country throughout the
whole of the Kosovo crisis and there was no bar put on the World Service using
those Russian facilities which helped tremendously. Has the Government
undertaken to fund selectively any additional rebroadcasting facilities for
human rights? Has that even been considered?
(Mr Hain) I know, Mr Chairman, we have, for example, provided some
œ600,000 over three years to the BBC World Service, specifically to raise
awareness of human rights issues. I think that the World Service plays an
absolutely vital role, both on behalf of British interests and specifically
in providing a free world media to address human rights concerns and other
issues of social, political and economic injustice. I know, for example, that
in many of the countries I have visited - India is a case in point - the only
means of communications to hundreds of millions of people is the radio. They
do not have televisions, they certainly do not have access to newspapers,
perhaps are not able to read newspapers, and so the World Service plays a very
important part in terms of promoting a better world including addressing
issues of human rights.
112. Do you agree that one of the advances put forward by the
World Service is to move from short-wave radio to rebroadcasting on FM and
even Internet usage? We were told recently by the World Service that Internet
usage both in Russia and in China is on the increase, yet the funding is a
problem as more and more demand comes in for Internet services. Would you
agree the move towards the Internet is a positive move forward?
(Mr Hain) I would agree that the addition of a priority to the Internet
is an important part of the BBC World Service's work and generally - a kind
of on-line approach, if I can put it that way. However, I think it ought to
be kept in perspective. That has my enthusiastic backing but I remember,
again as it were hot foot from India - and you will forgive me, Mr Chairman,
if I make more than one reference to it - when we discussed this specifically,
it was pointed out to us that hundreds and hundreds of millions of Indians,
notwithstanding the very skilled and explosive growth of IT which exists in
certain parts of India - Bangalore, for example - would not be able to access
the Internet and the vast majority of people in the world are not able to get
on the Internet. So I think the thing needs to be kept in proportion but I
would like to see the BBC nevertheless prioritising it.
113. What you are saying is that there is still a huge demand for
radio services?
(Mr Hain) There is a huge demand. I would also draw to the Committee's
attention that there is a Foreign Office website on human rights and that,
obviously, through the Internet enables everybody to interrogate our policies
and give their views.
Dr Starkey
114. Can I return to the issue of joined-up government, which my
colleagues raised initially in relation to the Home Office? How do you
actually ensure that departments such as the DTI and the MoD abide by the
Government's human rights policy?
(Mr Hain) We do work in terms of defence diplomacy with the MoD, where
we have a lot of common projects on the training for police or armed forces
to help bring a human rights dimension to their work. In Nigeria, for
example, we had a very brutal regime which has now been overthrown but there
is a lot of work to do to avoid the kind of gratuitous invasions of human
rights which occur daily in many countries like Nigeria because the security
apparatus has been geared to oppression rather than stability and law and
order, if I can put it that way. So we work very closely with the MoD, for
example, on that. In respect of the DTI, we constantly are in a dialogue over
arms exports and the granting of licences in which our concerns on human
rights figure very prominently.
Ms Abbott
115. On that specific point, you have just told the Committee that
your concern on human rights figure very prominently in decisions on strategic
exports, but as you will know the 1999 Annual Report on strategic export
controls showed that 771 licences were granted to India and 31 were refused,
132 to Pakistan, only eight refused, 64 to Saudi Arabia with none refused, 56
to Sri Lanka, none refused and 121 to Turkey, none refused. All of these are
countries with serious issues in relation to human rights violations. How can
you say that your human rights concerns figure prominently in this decision-
making when there are so few refusals for these countries with these problems
on human rights?
(Mr Hain) Because you cannot, though I do not quarrel with you for
seeking to portray it in that way, measure how effective you are in pursuing
your human rights policies by the number of licences refused or accepted.
What is important is the kind of equipment which is agreed and in none of
those cases, unless my hon. friend is able to correct me - and this should not
have occurred - had there been any export of equipment for torture, because
we banned that, or any export of equipment which could be used for internal
repression, because it is our policy not to sell defence equipment which could
be used for internal repression.
116. I have to put it to you that Amnesty International said, "The
Government confirmed in December 1998 that no formal mechanisms exist for
systematically monitoring the use ...", so you can only assert that these
things have not been used for internal repression, you have no means of
checking that.
(Mr Hain) I do not agree with that.
117. Do you agree then with Amnesty International's position that
a new regime to control arms exports, as recommended by the Scott Report three
years ago, is urgently required to prevent the Government efforts to promote
human rights abroad being seriously damaged by its trade policy?
(Mr Hain) We are committed - and if that is what my hon. friend is
alluding to I agree with her - to bringing in legislation as a Government on
this when we can find time in parliamentary business. Can I say very clearly
that we in our arms export policy apply the human rights test constantly, and
indeed we do so to the extent where we publish annual reports on this we lay
ourselves, quite rightly, confidently and willingly open to interrogation, to
being accountable. No other Government has ever done this before, we led the
way in Europe on getting a similar policy, a code of conduct in relation of
arms exports. I think we deserve some credit for that. Where there are
failures, as inevitably there are going to be because it is a messy world, we
will have those drawn to our attention and we will take appropriate action.
We are actually opening up the whole agenda for precisely the kind of
questions which I recognise my hon. friend has a legitimate concern about.
Chairman
118. Can you indicate precisely what is the monitoring mechanism
available to ensure that the goods, the arms, which we supply are not misused?
(Mr Hain) To the maximum practical extent, given there are so many
countries involved around the world, we do keep a watchful eye on what is
being done with the equipment which we sell, and where there are clear
invasions of the principles which govern our policy on arms exports, then we
will act upon those.
119. Have there been any cases where we have refused to supply
weapons because of evidence available to us that they have been passed to
third parties against our policy?
(Mr Hain) For example, on Indonesia, in the last full year of arms
exports to Indonesia by the previous Government, it was over œ400 million-
worth of exports, for the first full year of this Government it was œ2
million-worth of exports. That is a very dramatic change of policy in respect
of Indonesia.
120. Does that reflect the economic situation in Indonesia?
(Mr Hain) It reflects the Government's policy, amongst other things.
Dr Starkey
121. Can I turn to a different government department, the
Department for Education and Employment? Have you made any representations
to that Department about the importance of making room within schools in the
UK for human rights education, given that if we are serious about human rights
we need to be trying to develop a culture of human rights within our own
country as well as asserting it for other people?
(Mr Hain) I very much agree with my hon. friend on that point, which is
precisely why in the review of the national curriculum, which was conducted
by the DfEE and in my own capacity individually as a Welsh Office minister
last year, citizenship is now part of the national curriculum. Citizenship
both domestically and in respect of human rights abroad should feature very
strongly in the education of our children in my view.
122. But have you checked up whether citizenship actually includes
the human rights dimension?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly check that specifically and what if any
representations have been made by the Foreign Office and reply to the
Committee. But I am confident that citizenship is a global context or it is
nothing. Perhaps my official, Carolyn Browne, could just advise the Committee
on that point?
(Dr Browne) I recall in the short time I have been in this job that
there is work indeed going ahead actively by the DfEE on this issue and I have
at the back of my mind a memory that Amnesty International had some input and
are being consulted, but we will check that and get back to you.
Chairman
123. In any event, Minister, you are replying to the Committee on
that?
(Mr Hain) Yes, I will reply because it is an issue on which I strongly
agree with my hon. friend.
Sir John Stanley
124. Minister, you said Government policy was to ban the export of
torture equipment. You will have read the article in The Independent on
November 16th which said, "Torture equipment made in Britain is openly on sale
abroad despite a ban announced by ministers almost two and a half years ago.
The leg-irons, available in the United States, are believed to be legally
exported as oversized handcuffs and then adapted. The leg-irons, which are
attached by a 14-inch cain, are stamped 'Made in England' and are from Hiatt
of Birmingham, founded in 1780, which once sold 'Nigger Collars' to slave
traders, according to its official history. A Briton who says he was held in
Hiatt leg-irons in a Saudi jail has said he saw them used to hang other
prisoners upside down while they were beaten. After a time the irons were
acutely painful, he said." Minister, are you not appalled that these leg-
irons, which clearly because we have eye witness evidence can be used as
instruments of torture, are still being exported from the UK and that the
export ban you have referred to is clearly still deeply worryingly and
shockingly porous?
(Mr Hain) I am appalled with the hon. member that this could have
happened. What I am not satisfied about, and we are investigating with the
DTI, as the Foreign Secretary has said, is whether those particular leg-irons
were exported before or after the explicit ban which we introduced on leg-
irons in our 1997 policy. It is my information, though I stand to be
corrected, that these particular leg-irons may well have been exported in 1995
under the previous Government, though we are investigating this because I
agree with him that no British equipment should be used for that kind of
inhumane purpose.
125. You say it might have been old stock ---
(Mr Hain) That is exactly what I am saying.
126. You say it might have been old stock but you will also be
aware that The Independent went on to say that they had been to Ray's Sport
Shop in New Jersey. "The staff were helpful, friendly and open. They could
supply a variety of Hiatt goods, all recent stock, they said. The Independent
bought a pair of leg-irons with 'Made in England' on the cuff and with Hiatt's
address in Birmingham on the box." So it appears that The Independent
newspaper bought from recent stock in New Jersey just a fortnight ago a pair
of these leg-irons.
(Mr Hain) I agree that is appalling, and I am glad that the hon. member
is so concerned about it and he shares that concern equally with me.
Chairman
127. Would you follow that up, Minister, and write to us with a
response?
(Mr Hain) I will, Mr Chairman, absolutely, but I want to make it clear
that leg-irons are explicitly barred from being exported under the policy
which we announced in 1997; a new policy for which we deserve some credit.
Sir John Stanley
128. I have referred to the specific issue of leg-irons but can I
just ask in general terms, Minister, are you satisfied with the tautness, the
strength, of your controls to prevent torture equipment being exported
apparently legally out of the UK? According to this, they may have got out
because they have been described, or perhaps I should say "misdescribed" as -
and this is The Independent - "oversized handcuffs." I find it deeply
disturbing that the export control system should be apparently so ingenuous
to let through something described as an oversized handcuff when I would have
thought in dimensional terms there is no way conceivably they could have
fitted around anybody's wrists and stayed on.
(Mr Hain) No export licences have been issued by this Government for
leg-irons and if this instance proves to be as the hon. member has suggested,
that they somehow wriggled through the system, then we will seek to close any
loopholes which exist. That is why for the first time our Government said
that we are barring the export of such equipment, and we will seek to do so.
129. Could you, finally, let the Committee have a note as to
whether it is a criminal offence for a British company to knowingly
misdescribe an item which it wishes to seek an export licence for?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly give a note on that. Can I briefly say, Mr
Chairman, I welcome the bipartisan concern about the export of such equipment.
I assume this is now a cross-party matter.
Chairman
130. We are one great big happy family!
(Mr Hain) It is very welcome indeed and you may have my assurance, Mr
Chairman, that we will do what we can to work with you to propagate that
policy. The world is a very messy, imperfect place, and I am not saying that
some things do not get by the regulations we have brought in.
Mr Chidgey
131. It is very interesting to hear the Minister's responses but
I am somewhat surprised because I actually raised this matter last night in
the Foreign Affairs debate and I think the Minister was present. At some
length at some point in it I described in detail what was happening, as has
been supported by Sir John this morning. So I am surprised that the Minister
seems unaware of the situation ---
(Mr Hain) No. Can I seek to clarify that? Unaware of what situation?
132. Is it not the case, Minister, that the only legal change
which has taken place since the Foreign Secretary's statement of July 1997 is
the change in wording of the Export of Goods Control Order which added electro
shock equipment designed for personal protection to the banned equipment?
This is an issue which has been in the open now for sometime. The Foreign
Secretary responded in The Independent in a letter only last week defending
the DTI on this issue, when what we should be seeing from the Foreign
Secretary is action to stop it.
(Mr Hain) We are, as I have said on the record in front of this
Committee, investigating, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear, with the
DTI if there has been a breach of our policy. But I think the hon. member
ought to give us credit for bringing in the policy in the first place. I will
happily work with the Committee to try and address any concerns which have
arisen.
133. Let me try to be helpful to the Minister.
(Mr Hain) That would be very nice.
134. The basic problem, Minister, is that there is a loophole, it
would appear, in the law which enables companies who for many, many years have
sold these instruments to make, sell and broker them from this country by
selling them in component form. Customs & Excise officers have reported that
they have seen these packing cases being exported from the country but are
powerless to prevent their export to, in this case, America, but we understand
from the Government's own report on Strategic Arms Sales in 1997 and 1998 also
to Egypt, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. It seems to me that some
rapid joined-up government between the Foreign Office and the Department of
Trade & Industry should be able to close this loophole very quickly, and I,
for one, would welcome it.
(Mr Hain) I agree with the hon. member. That is precisely what we are
seeking to do.
Ms Abbott
135. I have two questions, one on mercenaries and one on child
soldiers. On page 40 of the Human Rights Report it says, "In April 1999 the
Government announced that it would issue, within 18 months, a Green Paper on
mercenary activity." I wonder if you can tell the Committee what progress has
been made with the Green Paper on mercenary activity?
(Mr Hain) Work is in progress and the plan is to publish it in the
autumn of next year.
136. On the child soldier issue - and as you know a lot of NGOs
are very concerned about this - during negotiations for the Convention for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour a proposal, supported by all
African governments and many others, was made for an outright ban on the use
of child combatants. Why did the UK, together with the US and the
Netherlands, weaken the Convention by seeking and gaining a reference only to
the forced participation of under-18s?
(Mr Hain) We are not seeking to block a consensus on this matter. What
we want, however, African countries especially to focus upon, and then we will
join with them, is the really serious abuse here which is that children as
young as 7 or 8, 9, 10, 11 carry a Kalashnikov around because of the explosion
of millions of small arms in Africa especially. We are working with everyone
on that.
Chairman
137. As we saw in Sierra Leone.
(Mr Hain) Sierra Leone was a classic one which is why we have made it
a condition of our œ10 million-worth of military assistance to the Sierra
Leone Government that the armed forces there should not recruit under-16s.
It is a complete prostitution of the whole idea and sanctity of childhood that
this should occur.
138. I have one final question on the International Criminal
Court. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that, consistent with his earlier
undertaking, we would be among the first 60 countries to ratify and he
mentioned the draft Bill, on which I shall be writing on behalf of the
Committee. Is the assurance that the Bill, the final Bill, will be introduced
in the next session of Parliament?
(Mr Hain) We want to see the Bill introduced as soon as possible.
139. "We" being the Foreign Office or the Government?
(Mr Hain) Both, but specifically the Foreign Office for which I am
speaking at the present time. We pressed for this Treaty, we want to see it
brought into force, we want to ratify it as one of the first countries
involved. We will be publishing the draft Bill as soon as we can. We would
very much value the views of the Foreign Affairs Committee on that. If we can
get an early consensus around it - and I do not think the principle is a
matter of dispute between the parties in the House - it may well be possible
to bring it in in the next parliamentary session subject to the constraints
which affect business managers. But we are trying to do it as quickly as we
can.
Chairman: I may have misunderstood and perhaps Sir John can clarify
this.
Sir John Stanley
140. You said "in the next". Do you mean actually in this
parliamentary session?
(Mr Hain) I want to see it introduced as soon as possible. It has been
published in this parliamentary session; as early next year as drafting
pressures allow. Once that has happened and a consensus is assembled around
it, through consultation with your Committee, Mr Chairman, with the other
parties, with the non-governmental organisations - and we will be involved in
an active process of consulting all the key NGOs in this context - if we can
get an early consensus because there is agreement on the principle and we can
find the window, we are keen in the Foreign Office to put it on the statute
book as soon as possible.
Chairman
141. "As soon as possible"? We are searching really for an
undertaking that that Bill will become law in this session of Parliament.
(Mr Hain) It is not in my gift to determine when it can reach the floor
of the House, that is a matter for the business managers. But, as I have
indicated perhaps as clearly - some might say "imprudently" - as possible, I
want to see it on quickly. As soon as the business managers can find an
opportunity, as soon as there is a consensus between the parties through the
usual channels to make sure that opportunity is a real one and does not impede
other Government business, then we can move. Could I just add that support
from your Committee on this matter would be very helpful to us.
Chairman: We can assure you of that support, Mr Hain.
Sir John Stanley
142. Please could you clarify the position of your department? Is
your department seeking to introduce this Bill in this session of Parliament?
(Mr Hain) It is not up to us to say when this Bill can be introduced,
as I have made clear. I want to see it. I am not dodging the matter. There
is a consensus between us on this. I want to see it introduced quickly. We
have no desire to hold it up, we were one of the first and leading countries
to press for this policy and we want to see it implemented.
143. I am sorry, is the Government's policy to try and introduce
this Bill in this session of Parliament?
(Mr Hain) The Government's policy is to try and introduce it as soon as
possible, that is why we are publishing it in this session of Parliament. We
could all help around this table and in respect of the membership of the
different parties which we hold to get an early consensus on this.
144. Minister, you obviously clearly must appreciate the crucial
importance of this.
(Mr Hain) I do.
145. Given the electoral timetable, this is possibly going to be
the last full session and there is a serious risk that if the Bill is not
introduced and able to complete its stages in this session, the Bill, even if
it is introduced relatively early in the next session, could conceivably be
lost. This is why this Committee, I am sure, wishes to press you on this.
Of course, we understand there is a business management dimension, we
understand that totally, but is the Government in terms of the priorities it
attaches to it doing everything it can to try to introduce it in this session?
(Mr Hain) It is not often, Mr Chairman, that ministers welcome pressure
from Committees and Committee members. I am straining at the leash to get
this Bill on the statute book as soon as possible and that is the Foreign
Office's position. I know the Government as a whole wants to see that happen.
Dr Starkey
146. Can I urge you, Minister, to explore with the business
managers the possibility if this Bill turns out to be non-contentious of the
use of the alternative chamber in getting it through? Contested votes are not
allowed there but it could be used to get through legislation if there are no
contested votes.
(Mr Hain) That, clearly, is one of the options and we are exploring all
options and your support in helping us progress this matter is much
appreciated.
Chairman
147. Minister, we have kept you in the field for a long time. We
have made criticisms of details of policy but you can rest assured that this
Committee, as indeed do the non-governmental organisations who are acting in
the field, has given a warm welcome to the fact of the publication of the two
Annual Reports on Human Rights, and may I say that some of us can see behind
that FCO facade a human rights activist dying to burst forth.
(Mr Hain) Thank you very much! Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I say I
have enjoyed my appearance in front of you.
