Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
24 FEBRUARY 2004
MR BILL
RAMMELL, MS
PHILIPPA DREW
AND MR
JON BENJAMIN
Q1 Chairman: Minister,
may I warmly, on behalf of the Committee, welcome to you to what
is your second appearance. You had only just been in post for
a short time when last we met. Now, no doubt, you are wholly master
of the human rights field. We have before us the sixth Human Rights
Report in the series. It has grown. It is much improved in my
judgment, both in the content and indeed in the format. To that
extent, we congratulate you and your colleagues on the work which
has gone on in this still thematic report, not country by country,
but even though there will be areas no doubt in the school report
where we would say you could do better, it is a very worthy document.
That is largely the feedback we get from those who have been able
to see the report. May I begin in this way? Clearly with joined-up
government what is clear from a perusal of the report is the extent
to which so much of the work is the responsibility not only of
the FCO but of DfID. To what extent has DfID been brought into
the discussion in relation to the report and is there a case effectively
for having a report which is jointly produced by both departments?
Mr Rammell: Chairman,
thank you for what you have said about the Annual Report. Clearly
changes have been initiated within the Foreign Office but it is
worth saying that many of the changes have come in response to
what this Committee has said, where annually we have engaged on
these issues, and also, I have to say with non-governmental organisations
in the human rights field who put forward suggestions and we have
genuinely listened and tried to take those on board. In terms
of the specific question about whether there should be a joint
report with DfID, if we go back to the origins of this report,
and I think the first one was produced in 1998, at that stage
it was a joint report with DfID. I think for the first two years
it was a joint report. At that stage, DfID took a decision that
they no longer wished to have it as a joint report. Last year
again that issue was considered at an official level, and there
was not a consensus to re-establish it. There is also an issue
in terms of principle, that in 1997 this Government took a decision
to separate out the international development function within
government from the wider foreign policy diplomatic considerations.
Were we to revert now and do a joint report, to some extent that
would fly in the face of that, but I am not theological on this
issue. If you have a strong view on it, I would welcome listening
to that. It is also worth saying for the record that it is not
something I have discussed with Hilary Benn or Gareth Thomas.
Q2 Chairman: It is still
on the active agenda for consideration whether there should be
a joint report?
Mr Rammell: From
our perspective, I think that would be overstating it. The decision
was taken back in 2000 to cease it as a joint operation. I am
saying I do not rule it out. If you have a strong view, then put
that forward to us and it is something that we can consider. I
think the arguments in terms of a separation of function between
DfID and the FCO would somewhat logically go against that.
Q3 Chairman: Essentially,
is the FCO open-minded on this?
Mr Rammell: If
a strong argument is put forward, we will have a look at it.
Q4 Chairman: May I make
one other general point before calling Mr Ottaway, and it is this.
Clearly the impact in terms of human rights, which we as the UK
have, is not only bilaterally but also through the various organisations
of which we are a member, primarily the European Union. There
is more clout, as this Committee saw, for example, when we were
in Teheran with the joint representations. To what extent should
the impact of the UK as part of the EU be included in this report?
At the moment, a section on the EU mentions enlargement but it
really skates over the rest. Do you think it is worthwhile considering
having a section on the work which we are able to do in partnership
with Europe?
Mr Rammell: I think
the answer to that is in principle "yes", although I
think, and officials might not forgive me if I do not make this
point, there is an issue about the length of the report and the
amount of work that goes into compiling it. Consistent with that
constraint, I think there is an argument. Certainly your point
about where we can work together internationally to reinforce
our human rights concerns is absolutely right. We do undertake
a number of joint démarches; we have done that recently
in the case of North Korea. Once a month, the heads of human rights
departments meet in Brussels to discuss a number of key concerns.
It is also the case, if we are being self-critical, that each
year at the Human Rights Commission we have not been that successful
at wheeling out, for want of a better phrase, the big gunsSolana
and Pattento lobby on particular human rights resolutions,
and that is an area where we could toughen up our act. All of
those are positive ways that we are working through the EU. The
point that maybe we ought to make that clearer is probably a valid
one.
Q5 Chairman: Surely it
would not require much additional work? It is what we are doing
within the EU.
Mr Rammell: Yes.
I think that is probably a point well taken.
Q6 Richard Ottaway: Minister,
I am concerned to hear that the Human Rights Project Fund is being
closed. Why have you made that decision?
Mr Rammell: That
is in line with the overall strategic review within the Foreign
Office where we are in a very real sense, instead of just in terms
of the activities that we undertake, responding to world events.
Although inevitably part of what we have to do is to respond to
world events, actually we have to prioritise our activities and
ensure that our expenditure matches that. That means facing up
to the key challenges, such as international terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Against that, we
have taken the decision, in conjunction with the Treasury, to
establish the Global Opportunities Fund and the Human Rights Fund
has been merged within that. Howeverand I know you have
received evidence on thisit is worth underlining the fact
that through that process we are ending up spending more money
on human rights than was previously the case. If you look at the
Human Rights Project Fund spend for 2001-02, there was a figure
of £6.6 million; in 2003 that was £7.4 million; this
financial year, if you combine both the Human Rights Project fund
of £8.1 million and other Global Opportunities Fund programmes
that are spent on human rights, you reach £11.1 million.
That dips slightly to £10.5 million next year, but in 2005-06
goes up to £14.5 million. That is because of greater prioritisation
about where we spend human rights funding through the Global Opportunities
Fund, but also taking account of the fact that if we did that
exclusively, there might be some important human rights considerations
that would otherwise lose out. That is why, in addition to the
current GOF programmes, as from next year, we are also establishing
a separate GOF human rights programme of £2 million each
year.
Q7 Richard Ottaway: Is
not human rights now a smaller chunk of that larger budget and
the actual money being specifically spent on human rights is less
than the £8.1 million that was previously allocated?
Mr Rammell: No.
The Global Opportunities Fund is much larger than the figures
I have quoted. The elements of the GOF programmeand what
I was quoting, to be clear, was £3 million in 2003-04, £6
million in 2004-05 and £12 million 2005-06are the
GOF elements which are being spent on human rights projects.
Mr Pope: I have one question
which follows on from that because I am confused by this. There
is the Human Rights and Good Governments Programme under GOF;
expenditure of £7.4 million in 2002-03 will fall to £2
million in 2004-05. You are accepting that there is a fall there
but there is an increase in other elements of the funding in other
parts of the world. It would be helpful if you could write to
the Committee to explain exactly where that funding is, because
I certainly am not clear about this[1].
Mr Rammell: Certainly,
and I think that is a good suggestion. As I was preparing for
this Committee, I felt it was complicated as you looked through
the figures. As I say, my clear understanding of the figures is
that overall there is a significant increase. I would say it is
important that we monitor it and you keep us to account in monitoring
it to ensure that those figures actually do materialise. I will
happily write to the Committee about this.
Q8 Mr Illsley: Minister,
my questions are on the United Nations Commission and on human
rights, which obviously feature heavily throughout the annual
report. I want to ask you whether you have any view, or whether
the Government has any view, on whether the election of Libya,
a country with a not unblemished record on human rights, as the
presiding country of the UNHCR has damaged its image in any way?
Mr Rammell: You
will be aware, and I think we discussed this in this Committee
last year, that there were, to say the least, reservations about
the appointment of a Libyan to that post, given the concerns about
Libya's human rights record. If you look at what the individual
didand I spoke at the Commission last year and observed
her performanceoverall, I think she gave a creditable performance.
Certainly the chairmanship was more constructive than many people
had feared. However, you are right and, given the concerns about
Libya's human rights record, we certainly made clear at the time
that we would have preferred the African national group to have
chosen another candidate with a better human rights record to
nominate. We had a choice at that stage about whether we voted
against that proposition or whether we abstained. We took the
view that to vote against, given concerns about polarisation within
the Commission on Human Rights, would have set an unfortunate
precedent that could come back to haunt us all in the longer run,
and therefore we decided to register our concern and protest by
abstaining. We did have a concern. That is why we abstained. However,
the performance of the individual was certainly not as bad as
had been feared.
Q9 Mr Illsley: Will we
still continue to lobby countries like Libya, even though they
have the presidency for the present time, on their human rights
record? Do we still take opportunities to remind them of that?
Mr Rammell: Absolutely,
and I think in every bilateral relationship we have throughout
the world, however strong those relationships, we still take the
opportunities to lobby and express concerns on human rights where
those opportunities exist.
Q10 Mr Illsley: Finally,
are we doing anything as a country to expand the membership of
the UNHCR[2]
and improve its work?
Mr Rammell: We
are. I came into this new last year. I had heard all the stories
about the previous year's Commission on Human Rights, which is
incredibly polarised, where it was block politics and there was
not a genuine focus on the genuine human rights concerns. I think
there was a sense, and certainly our contribution to the Commission
last year went along these lines, that we wanted to move away
from that. We have tried to get away from some of the block politics
and to encourage people to engage genuinely on the human rights
issues. There is an ongoing debate that we often have with the
NGO community about whether in fact there ought to be criteria
for membership of the Commission on Human Rights; i.e. you have
to meet a certain standard of human rights norms before you can
go on to that. I have often used the phrase that turkeys do not
tend to vote for Christmas. Therefore, to get every country, a
number of them with very problematic human rights records, to
agree to that would be difficult. Whilst as an objective I think
it makes sense, I am not sure it is achievable.
Q11 Mr Chidgey: Minister,
may I ask you a few questions around the subject of corporate
social responsibility? I am aware, and the Committee is aware,
that the United Kingdom has been quite a leader in this whole
concept of social responsibility on a corporate basis. In fact,
I think we have the first Minister responsible for that, so we
have led the way. However, it seems to me the Government is still
relying too much on voluntary application of the various codes.
Would it not be better for the Government, recognising that it
does support the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises,
to do something about strengthening up the mechanisms of compliance?
Should not the Government be thinking along the lines first of
stronger compliance mechanisms and making those guidelines compulsory?
Mr Rammell: I think
this is a genuinely important area of debate and there is a growing
view within society that businesses should take on a much broader
sense of their social, environmental and human rights responsibilities.
Indeed, many businesses are doing that. Certainly a number of
mechanisms have moved in a positive direction: the UN Global Compact
that was launched in December 1999, the Voluntary Principles of
Security and Human Rights, which we launched with the US back
in December 2000, but I think you may be referring to the UN sub-committee's
draft norms.
Q12 Mr Chidgey: I was
going to come on to that a bit later. You may answer that now.
Will the Government strengthen its advocacy of the UN Norms on
Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business
Enterprises with regard to human rights? It is all part of the
same question. The Prime Minister himself launched the Extractive
Industry's Transparency Initiative in Johannesburg. Here again,
there is the willingness of compliance. Will not the Government
consider making that initiative obligatory? What about the UK
taking some action in encouraging other states to work within
these guidelines? There are lot of good ideas but all very much
reliant on the people we are looking to be responsible taking
up that responsibility without any further leverage from people
in government, who I think should be taking this responsibility.
Mr Rammell: I do
understand this concern. I think one of the difficulties is that,
if you look at international human rights laws, those refer to
the responsibilities of states and the power of states, not of
individual, non-state actors when they are private organisations.
The problem, in terms of the way that the draft norms have been
crafted is that it is not clear that you can actually do what
is intended within the current international legal framework.
I think a better approach, and one that we could certainly look
at, is the one that focused on the responsibilities of states
then to take the responsibility to regulate businesses. If you
try, through those international mechanisms, to focus upon individual
non-state actors, I think there is a significant legal difficulty.
Q13 Mr Chidgey: The problem
I have here, Minister, is that we seem to be relying to a great
extent on international NGOs to highlight the concerns, raise
the issues and look, if you like, for pressure outside of states
to get some action, but at the same time, it is often the case
that the state is the customer, particularly for the extractive
industries, and the customer does have a lot of leverage in how
he purchases the products in a general sense. Surely there is
an opportunity for the state to do a little more than it does?
Mr Rammell: I am
certainly not ruling that out, although I think there is a genuine
difficulty in the sense of the international legal framework.
The example you give of states using their purchasing power as
a lever is important. There is a very good example, which is the
Kimberley Process, in terms of tackling conflict diamonds, and
we were at the forefront of working for that, which I think is
a unique set-up between governments, NGOs and the private sector.
There has been an active debate within that about the degree to
which, once you have established the framework, you then seek
to enforce verification mechanisms. That is an example of what
can be achieved. In many senses, this is a new area. If you go
back five or ten years, we were not even thinking about this kind
of framework and these suggestions. That does not mean I rule
it out but it is a developing process.
Q14 Mr Chidgey: Just taking
this a stage further and in a slightly different direction, but
again in the context of corporate responsibility, one of the concerns
of the Committee is the opportunities provided for some, shall
we say, less responsible business practices to benefit from less
than effective human rights legislation in some of our overseas
territories. There is a whole question here about human rights
legislation in overseas territories. We have been down that road
on other occasions but it is still valid. You will know about
the problems in the Cayman Islands, for example of the population
there, particularly the immigrant population. There is a case
here that, with the devolution of power and legislation for government
to our overseas territories, we have lost any ability to dictate
how they should operate their internal self-government. Nevertheless,
there is a responsibility in a general sense for the practice
of human rights. I would like to know what the Government's position
is on this. Is it in the forefront of your mind or is it tucked
away in a dark recess of a cupboard? We cannot just say, "We
have a bit of a problem because these territories are now independent
and self-governing". There are responsibilities in a wider
sense, particularly if UK companies are taking advantage of rather
lax regulations, which I am sure we would not wish to allow them
to do.
Mr Rammell: It
certainly is not something that is locked away in a dark cupboard.
As the Foreign Office Minister responsible for our relations with
the overseas territories, I regularly debate these issues. In
fact, at this year's Overseas Territories' Council we had a robust
exchange of views for two days about the degree to which, within
the settlements coming out of the Overseas Territories White Paper,
it is still the responsibility of the UK Government. So, notwithstanding
that, we have an overall concern about good governance because
that can impact on some of the international considerations for
which, under that division of responsibilities, we still have
responsibility. It is a live and active debate. Generally, the
view that we take is that the Overseas Territories should adhere
to the same human rights standards as the UK, and we are regularly
engaged with chief ministers within the overseas territories on
that issue. I do not think I am giving anything away by saying
that that is a process in which there are differences of views
and emphases from time to time.
Q15 Mr Olner: Minister,
the report quite rightly claims that the FCO has major concerns
about human rights abuses in the northern province in Indonesia.
If that is the case, why are we still continuing to supply Indonesia
with arms?
Mr Rammell: If
you look at the overall arms export situationand I know
you will be seeing the Foreign Secretary tomorrow and I do not
want to steal any of his thunder on that issuewe do have
the consolidated EU and national arms sales criteria, which are
amongst the toughest in the world and ensure, and I know this
as an FCO Minister who has to sign off or not arms sales applications,
that it is a rigorous process and some arms sales are refused
under those criteria. In terms of the specifics of Indonesia,
it is the case that Indonesia is at liberty to deploy its equipment
within the territory to defend its people. The main supply route
for food supplies and humanitarian aid to Aceh has been attacked
by the Free Aceh Movement. The Indonesian Government says that
it is using British-built military equipment to secure the supply
routes which provide much needed humanitarian aid. We do not have
evidence to the contrary on that and we do make strenuous efforts
to reassure ourselves that that is the case. If, at some stage,
information came forward which contradicted that and demonstrated
that British equipment was being used for internal repression,
then that would clearly affect future arms sales. At the moment
we do not believe, and there is a rigorous process for this, that
the sales contradict the consolidated criteria and that there
is a reasonable explanation for what the military equipment is
being used.
Q16 Mr Olner: It just
concerns me that perhaps we are sending a wrong message. One of
the problems, not only in Indonesia and that side of the continent
but in Africa as well, is the amount of small arms floating around
these countries that causes tremendous damage to communities.
It seems to me that we are not rigorous enough in ensuring that
those small arms weapons are destroyed and that, as one conflict
finishes, the weapons are taken away, they have left that place
and, all of sudden, someone else has them and is using them again.
With us supplying arms as well, it does not really take any weapons
completely out of these countries.
Mr Rammell: That
is a wider issue. In terms of specific arms sales to Indonesia,
I am confident, from all the information we get, that those are
in accordance with the consolidated criteria. The wider point
you make about small arms I think is a really serious concern.
We have this major focus, and rightly, on the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and we have to be doing that, but
at the same time over half a million people each year are killed
through small arms. It is a concern. We have taken a number of
initiatives. We launched an initiative at Lancaster House last
year to try to make some progress on this issue, particularly
in terms of collecting and destroying small arms. We have supported
the UN Development Fund project to the tune of £7.5 million
and that is the overall figure for the fund in trying to make
progress on that issue. In terms of small arms, and particularly
the way that impacts in Africa, that is an absolutely valid point.
Q17 Mr Hamilton: Minister,
do you think that one can reconcile a human rights policy such
as we have with the sale of arms?
Mr Rammell: I think
there is a legitimate defence sales industry for defensive purposes.
I have observed that at a local level within my own constituency
with people. I am sure other Members here have gone through that
similar experience. It is a legitimate industry; people are involved
in working on that. For defensive purposes, no-one ever wants
to see anybody use a weapon, but there are certain circumstances
in which defensive military action is justified. In those circumstances,
I think these sales are legitimate.
Q18 Mr Hamilton: Accepting
that defence is always justified and therefore we should continue
to produce arms, can we not do more ourselves to try to destroy
those arms that are either redundant or that are in some way being
abused, in other words, they have been used by the genuine purchaser
for whatever purpose and are then made redundant, and are then
re-exported to parts of Africa where it is now cheaper to buy
an AK47I know we do not make AK 47sthan staple foods?
Mr Rammell: I think
that is a valid point. There has been a fall in the level of arms
sales to Africa in the last year or so, which I think has been
welcomed. The point I was making previously to Mr Olner is that
the issue of small arms sales and how you tackle that and get
the arms back and destroy them is one that we are taking seriously.
We have launched initiatives on that front ourselves, and we are
working with others. Whether we are doing that as robustly as
ideally we shouldand I think we areand if that is
in area of concern, I would urge Members to keep putting that
view forward.
Q19 Mr Hamilton: Do you
think there is a case for extra territoriality to be extended
in the case of British arms brokers abroad?
Mr Rammell: I know
that issue is probably going to be picked up in the debate tomorrow.
1 Please refer to supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 35. Back
2
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Back
|