Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
24 FEBRUARY 2004
MR BILL
RAMMELL, MS
PHILIPPA DREW
AND MR
JON BENJAMIN
Q60 Mr Maples: In Dr Sampson's
case he has identified who these two people were who tortured
him. I do not know whether the other people who were tortured
have as well. Have we pursued with the Saudi Government these
individuals and asked them to investigate and prosecute them for
doing this, because they allege it does not happen but we have
concrete evidence that it did. Are they showing any willingness
to investigate these particular cases?
Mr Rammell: My
understanding is there are individual legal cases that are being
undertaken . . .
Q61 Mr Maples: But they
are being brought here. I am talking about asking the Saudi authorities
to prosecute these torturers.
Mr Rammell: Clearly,
if the individuals wish to come forward with the evidence to the
British Government, we will look at that and discuss what is the
best way to pursue that. There are two other important issues
with regard to this, and this was raised in the adjournment debate.
A question was asked about whether any of the individuals who
were allegedly involved in torture, if they came to the United
Kingdom, could be prosecuted, and I have subsequently written
to members of the Committee making clear that they could. Secondly,
and I should have made this clear at the beginning, although I
fully understand your concern in raising the case of Mr Sampson
and since he has arrived back in the United Kingdom we have given
him on-going consular support, nevertheless whilst he was detained
in Saudi Arabia travelling under a Canadian passport, under strict
consular conventions we were not able to make representations
on his behalf.
Q62 Mr Maples: I did not
raise the consular question because of that but it is just that
he has given evidence to this Committee of what has happened to
him; he is a British citizen as well as a Canadian citizen; this
is what happened to the other people as well and I think we have
to bear in mind when we talk about human rights that it is not
always about votes for women or freedom for religious martyrs
but sometimes systematic torture of citizens from our own country.
I think I have made my point so I would urge you in next year's
report to be more robust about countries, particularly ones that
treat British citizens like this abroad, and, secondly, unless
you are prepared to exact some price from countries like Saudi
Arabia from doing this sort of thing they are not going to change
their behaviour.
Mr Rammell: I hear
what you are saying but I also hear your welcome acknowledgement
that we have moved significantly from last year's position.
Q63 Chairman: Mr Maples
has read out an appalling allegation of torture. Do you accept
that in substance that is true?
Mr Rammell: It
is a very strong allegation and we have constantly made clear
our concerns about the case to the Saudi authorities. We are not
aware of the exact circumstances of what took place. Nevertheless,
we have raised our concerns consistently about those cases, and
I know there can be criticisms about the time it took but we repeatedly
raised the concerns and secured the men's release.
Q64 Mr Hamilton: Can I
turn to Israel and Palestinian territories, Minister? On page
47 of the report you say, "We support Israel's rights, within
international law, to protect its citizens, but we remain deeply
concerned at the impact that the continuing Israeli occupation
and the associated Israeli military operations have had on the
lives of ordinary Palestinians." Then you go on to say on
page 48, "The Palestinian Authority must do all it can to
prevent terrorist attacks against Israel, and bring those responsible
to justice.", and I am delighted that you have a very balanced
view there of the violence that is going on on both sides. Last
September, this Committee visited the Middle East and in particular
Israel and the Palestinian territories and, whilst we were there,
we went to visit the town of Kalkilya, which I know has been in
the news recently because of the huge wall which we saw for ourselves,
the 25 ft/8 ms high concrete wall, that surrounds the entire town
with only one entry and exit point. We heard first hand from Arab
farmers, who had every reason to be pleased to be associated with
Israel and be part of Israel, the harassment that was being caused
to them, the five-hour time delay it took to get through, the
checkpoints just to go and farm their own lands and get on with
their own day-to-day business. My question relates really to what
pressure the United Kingdom Government is putting on the Israel
government, given the full support we have for Israel's security
and its right to be free of this terror of suicide bombings, to
ensure that any fence they do build goes along the internationally
recognised green line boundary, and does not make incursions into
Palestinian territory in that way into the Occupied Territories,
and, even worse, completely cut off towns like Kalkilya. Are we
doing anything to try and stop this? Secondly, if I may, we were
told repeatedly that this was a barrier, a fence, and not a wall,
but pretty well everybody in this room stood underneath a wall
that was made of concrete and was 25 foot high with control towers
above it. So what are we doing to put pressure on the Israeli
Government?
Mr Rammell: It
is a genuinely key concern but it is important, first of all,
and you acknowledged it, that you do have to be even-handed on
this issue. This is a dispute, an appalling dispute, that not
only has ramifications in the area but much more widely where
there has to be movement on both sides, and that has to mean early
progress in tackling terrorist activities by the Palestinian authorities
but also significant efforts by the Israeli Government to implement
its commitments under the road map, particularly in terms of settlement
outposts and, indeed, the wall. We have made abundantly clear,
and it is interesting that when this issue is debated at Foreign
Office Questions I do not get a sense on either side of the argument
that MPs are criticising the Government for lack of clarity of
our view on this issue, that we deplore the demolition and confiscation
of Palestinian land which is associated with the construction
of the fence. It is a fence in parts of the area and a wall in
others, but it is still a huge impediment, whatever form and structure
it takes, which is also unlawful and threatens a two-state solution,
and particularly the impact upon Palestinian livelihoods is devastating.
I was looking at some of the figures and before the start of the
Intifada in September 2000, 20% of Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories were classified as living in poverty; according to
the World Bank today it is 60%. These actions have undoubtedly
had a significant impact. That does not mean that the blame and
fault lies just on one side but this is an appalling dispute that
we have to get out of, and the only way is through a political
settlement. That I think for us means the road map. We are gravely
concerned: we were much more optimistic six months ago on the
implementation of the road map, and our efforts at the moment
on both sides of the argument are to get both sides to implement
its provisions. It is the only way forward.
Q65 Mr Hamilton: I do
not think anybody would disagree with you on that. The problem
is it does not seem to be happening, and there is an escalating
cycle of violence and intimidation on both sides. We had a suicide
bombing just yesterday with the most appalling consequences for
Israeli citizens, but what concerns me and many of my colleagues
is that if you isolate a town of people, predominantly Arab, who
have every reason to be at least sympathetic in some way to being
part of Israel because economically they have benefited, as in
the case of this individual farmer that we met, you are then turning
people who are already fairly well disposed away from Israel,
making them very bitter, and impoverishing those very people that
you want to win over, and it seems to me that something has to
give. In spite of our commitment, rightly so, to the road map,
what can be done to try and persuade the Israeli Government that
building the wall where they are building it is entirely wrong
and will only serve to exacerbate the violent situation they find
themselves in already.
Mr Rammell: You
are right. We do understand Israel's security concerns and it
is genuinely important that we recognise that; nevertheless, particularly
the humanitarian and human rights implications of the building
of the wall are extremely significant. I take the view that not
only is this wrong in itself but is deeply counter-productive
from Israel's own self-interest point of view and perspective,
and that is an argument we are consistently making. We are making
it directly to the Israelis; we are also making similar arguments
to the Palestinian Authority in terms of their responsibilities;
and we are looking to work with others internationally to get
that argument across, but sometimes in some of these situations
with the best efforts in the world you do not always achieve the
progress that you want at the pace you would want, and it is the
understatement of the year to say that we are in that situation
at the moment.
Q66 Chairman: Minister,
one question, if I may, on Egypt. The Committee has received a
submission from Mr Alistair Nisbet[9]whose
son, with three other men, all British nationals, are in gaol
in Egypt awaiting formal trial. It is said to be the longest detention
without trial in Egyptian legal history; it is alleged that confessions
were extracted under torture which they signed under duress, yet
the Annual Report makes little mention of judicial abuses in Egypt
and none of this case where, as in Saudi Arabia, four British
subjects—that is, Mr Maajid Nawaz, Mr Hassan Rizvi, Mr Ian
Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst—are in gaol subject, it is said,
to torture.
Q67 Mr Rammell: This is
a case that we are involved with through our consular efforts.
This case did look as though it was going to go to court recently
and it has been delayed until 25 March and I certainly understand
the real concern of the families. We are through our Embassy seeking
an explanation for that delay. We have also written directly to
the Foreign Minister to bluntly express concern about the time
this is taking to complete, and we have also sought a reassurance
that there will be a verdict on 25 March. So we are engaged on
this case, and we will continue to press it.
Q68 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
we had one reference from my colleague, Mr Maples, to pussyfooting
around on human rights in relation to Saudi Arabia, and I think
the expression is also the case in relation to China. Perhaps
you may or may not agree that a classic illustration of that came
a month after your Report was published, in October of last year,
at the time of the EU China summit in Beijing when very important
trade objectives were there to be secured, which was China's participation
in the Gallileo project, and after that was achieved Mr Berlusconi
who led the EU delegation said that there had been "a quantum
leap in terms of co-operation". Well, there certainly was
on the trade front but at the end of the communique[acute] was
the standard going-through-the-motions insertion on human rights
and it was said that both sides "agreed to continue their
on-going dialogue on human rights on the basis of equality and
mutual respect", which we all know is a euphemism for largely
turning a blind eye. Happily, organisations like Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch are most certainly not turning a blind
eye to what is going on in China in terms of the massive use of
the death penalty, in terms of the very serious Buddhist persecution
going on in Tibet, the repression of the Falun Gong, dealing with
those who are trying to create genuinely independent non state-run
trade unions in the country and are trying to campaign for freedom
of expression. Perhaps one particular case which is symptomatic
of many is the recent report put out by Human Rights Watch entitled
Trials of a Tibetan Monk, The Case of Tenzin Delek, and
in the press release that was put out in relation to the report
it says, "Human Rights Watch report, Trials of a Tibetan
Monk, The Case of Tenzin Delek. Documents show how Government
officials sought to silence Tenzin Delek for more than a decade.
Human Rights Watch provides new information indicating that he
was tried on what appeared to be unproven bombing charges. Official
Chinese sources claimed Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dhondup were
responsible for a series of explosions in Setchzuan and for inciting
`splittism', a Chinese term for pro independence activities. Chinese
officials who assert that State secrets were involved refused
to open Tenzin Delek's trial to public scrutiny, or release the
indictment, verdict or any of the evidence presented and they
refuse to permit lawyers chosen by members of his family to defend
him at appeal." So I put it to you, Minister, that this is
an area where the British Government is essentially going through
the motions. I make it quite clear I do not think the British
Government is remotely alone in this: that is now a general stance
amongst the EU Member States which is deeply regrettable and I
think it is also basically the stance of the present US administration,
but you are accountable for the performance of the British Government
in this area and perhaps you could respond to that suggestion
that for real, in human rights terms, we are very largely going
through the motions.
Mr Rammell: I genuinely
do not believe that to be the case and I will give you some personal
examples of that, but I am not going to apologise for the fact
that we do seek to engage with China because whether it is international
security or climate change or economic development, China is a
huge and developing force within the world and it is right that
we are seeking to engage with them and to orientate them in a
way that is in the international interest and is in our interest.
However, I genuinely do not believe that that stops us from consistently,
with that approach, raising significant human rights concerns.
As a Foreign Office Minister involved in meetings and discussions
in Beijing, I have certainly done that and switched from discussing
trades to directly discussing human rights concerns. One of the
cases you referred to of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche I personally raised
with Vice Foreign Minister Yesui when I was in Beijing just before
Christmas. One of my first experiences as a Foreign Minister holding
this portfolio was the biannual China/United Kingdom human rights
dialogue where I spent an hour and ten minutes discussing the
death penalty. I think we are right to do that but I am sure that
anyone who is engaged with Chinese officials on these issues will
know there is a degree of diplomacy to be gone through, and it
took an hour and ten minutes to get an acknowledgement finally
that, from their perspective, they are at a different stage of
development from an advanced, developed country like the United
Kingdom. Now, I do not accept that argument and I think we should
continue to press on the death penalty and the other issues you
have raised, but I do refute the acquisition that we do not put
these views forward. We do on a consistent basis. On Tibet the
Prime Minister raised it when he was in China; I have raised it;
I think there have been some positive elements. The fact that
representatives of the Dalai Lama have visited Beijing I see as
a positive development because ultimately there can only be a
political solution. Our human rights dialogue that we hold twice
a year is separate to the EU one; I do not absolve ourselves from
responsibility for the EU human rights dialogue but the one we
drive and lead on our own is that one, and I think that has led
to some difficult discussions. In the field of economic rights
in the rule of law there has been significant progress; in other
areas, there is still a long way to go and I think it is right
that we keep raising these issues.
Q69 Sir John Stanley: I
must make it quite clear that at no point did I suggest the British
Government was not raising the issues. Undoubtedly it has done,
indeed so has this Committee when we visited China, but there
is a whole world of difference between raising an issue and producing
practical results and improvements, and I would just say that
the yardstick for judging the effectiveness of the policies being
pursued are the results on the ground so, Minister, if there are
further practical advances that you see having taken place as
a result of the policy now being followed which are not referred
to in the present report and which have taken place since the
report was issued, I am sure the Committee would be glad to receive
them.
Mr Rammell: Dealing
with the first part of that, when we are debating these issues
all the influence is not in your own hands and sometimes you cannot
get the progress you would otherwise wish to have. Nevertheless,
there are examples of progress in China. The fact that they have
made their first report under the UN Convention on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights in May 2003 and are demonstrating through
that process that they are starting to engage with the UN international
human rights norms is a step forward; the visit of the UN Special
Rapporteur on Education last September; the release from detention
of some prisoners—not as many as we would have liked but
some—on our list of individual cases of concern; the end
of the anti crime Strike Hard campaign in May 2003, and the abolition
of the custody of repatriation form of administrative detention.
I am not for a minute suggesting that that level of progress means
that all our concerns are removed, they are not, but I think there
is some evidence of change and a demonstration that the process
of engagement does bear some results.
Q70 Mr Pope: Sir John
referred to pussyfooting with China. I have to put it to you,
Minister, that really the Foreign Secretary is Pussycat in Chief
here. The charge is not that these issues are not being raised
by the British Government—of course they are, we can see
that and they are all laid out in the report; the charge is that
nothing is happening. Of the United Kingdom Government's own objectives
concerning United Kingdom-China human rights dialogue, outlined
on pages 38-40 of the Report, there are eleven objectives and
I have to put it to you that on the vast majority of them no progress
is being made. For example, the third objective is a reduction
in the use of the death penalty. Well, according to Human Rights
Watch, 6,000 people a year are executed in China which is more
judicial executions than in the rest of the world put together.
Another British objective is full and constructive responses to
our cases of concern. Of the 44 cases put forward by the United
Kingdom Government, the Chinese Government did not even respond
to 28 of them, and the point is we are not making any progress.
I understand the point you made which is that there are sensitivities,
it is difficult to raise issues and it needs to be done in a way
that does not cause offence, but my point is that this just is
not paying off and we would be better off taking a different approach.
What have we to lose by really banging the drum on human rights
abuses in China, because the dialogue that you have mentioned
in the twice yearly meetings just is not paying off.
Mr Rammell: Firstly,
I am sure some of what we say, because we say it both privately
and publicly, does cause offence but it is within the context
of the process of engagement. Interestingly, we engage with a
whole host of human rights NGOs on the annual dialogue, the vast
majority of whom believe we are right to pursue that dialogue.
People like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, whilst they are not
for a minute going to move away from criticising us where they
think we are wrong, think the process of the dialogue is worthwhile.
Undoubtedly, however, there are some areas of this where we have
not made as much progress in achieving our objectives as we would
wish; there are others where we have. You quoted some of them,
and of course I will put my hands up and say that the death penalty
is still a really serious concern and depending on the figures
you look at there are more people executed in China than anywhere
else in the world. That is a genuine concern. Does that mean that
we are not going to continue to put that concern forward? No,
it does not, but in other areas, things like the reform of the
administrative detention measures, there has been progress; in
terms of full and constructive responses to cases of concern there
has been some progress compared to what used to be the situation,
and in that case the judgment you have to make is not to compare
getting responses on 16 out of our 44 cases but what response
level would we have got if we were in the drawbridge-up situation
that we were in a number of years ago of not trying to engage
with China? I would suggest that you would have got a much significantly
reduced level of response than that figure.
Q71 Mr Pope: Well, I am
not sure. Amnesty say that there has been a final crackdown on
cyber dissidents and a crackdown on "separatists" in
Xinjiang province, there is a systematic use of torture, beatings,
electric shock torture, sleep and food deprivation, repression
of political and religious freedom in Tibet, and you raised the
case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche but the fact is he is still in prison
and still suffering human rights abuses, and I am not convinced
that the approach of the Government that you have outlined today
is paying off. What I really want you to do is at least give us
an assurance that there will be a reassessment, a review, a reflection,
on whether or not this is the best way forward, because it is
at least arguable that the softly softly approach which you have
outlined is not paying dividends and it is at least worth considering
taking a different approach to China.
Mr Rammell: Firstly,
I would refute that it is a "softly softly" approach;
in a whole range of ways we robustly take these concerns forward.
In terms of general reflection, you could call us here anyway
but we do willingly engage in this process every year, and since
I have been in Government I firmly take the view that the idea
that you have all the answers and the wisdom is within Government
and people outside do not is manifestly wrong, and therefore we
do listen and will reflect on what is said. Is it in any sense
a wholly desirable situation? No, but I think we are making some
progress. We will, however, listen to what you say.
Q72 Mr Pope: Finally,
very briefly, as this dialogue is clearly going to continue for
a while even if you reflect on what I say, I would like to ask
if you could specifically raise at the next meeting religious
freedom, particularly of Christian minorities, in China?
Mr Rammell: That
is something we have taken up previously within dialogue and will
do again. Also, you referred to Mr Rinpoche and it is a concern
that he is still detained. There are other examples of progress.
One of the most moving meetings I have been involved in in an
awfully long time was meeting Ngawang Sangdrol when she visited
London some months ago, so we do make progress in some areas.
Chairman: Minister, I
would like to end with Sir John on North Korea, and then Mr Ottaway
has a point.
Q73 Sir John Stanley: I
do not have any peculiar interest but I should just say that I
chair the All-Party Group between Britain and the Republic of
Korea, South Korea of course, and I hope that does not in any
way prevent me having an objective view in relation to the north.
In this session of the Committee we seem to have gone through
a grimly rising escalator of human rights appalling abuses, and
if we are finishing with North Korea I think you will probably
agree that human rights violations there are probably as gross
and on as large a scale as any country in the world. That, of
course, has very recently been shown in a very dramatic way by
the BBC following evidence which they took from a North Korean
defector. This man changed his name for understandable reasons
but the name that was given was Kwon Hyuk, who was the chief of
management at Camp 22, which is North Korea's largest concentration
camp. In the report that was put out before the BBC documentary
was produced it says, "Witnesses have described watching
entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are
left to an agonising death while scientists take notes".
Mr Kwon Hyuk gave this personal evidence and he is certainly in
a position to know precisely what was happening and he says this:
"I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas
and dying in the gas chamber, the parents, son and a daughter.
The parents were vomiting and dying but until the very last moment
they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing".
Against these appalling human rights violations taking place in
the North Korea, will you set out for us what the British Government
is trying to do to end these utterly barbaric and totally unacceptable
practices?
Mr Rammell: I have
to say as the FCO Minister responsible for human rights you deal
on a daily and weekly basis with accusations and allegations of
human rights atrocities but the passage you have just read out
I found one of the most appalling I have dealt with in the fifteen
months that I have held this post, and arguably the human rights
situation in North Korea is the worst in the world. It is something
that we have raised consistently: I did it when I met Vice Foreign
Minister Kye when he visited London back in May. Immediately following
the BBC documentary it was raised at official level and I called
in the North Korean Ambassador to discuss it in detail. I pressed
the individual cases that you have referred to; I also pressed
him strongly on the fact that the alleged prison camps all happen
to be in areas of the country that are sealed off for so-called
"security" purposes. Is that happenstance? I think not.
One of the difficulties in taking forward human rights concerns
is getting verification. There is virtually no regime in the world
that is as cut off from the outside world as North Korea, and
that is one of the reasons that in the Commission on Human Rights
in Geneva last year we pushed for a resolution which was passed
on the resolutions that were voted for by the biggest margin of
a country specific resolution, which I think indicates the degree
of concern. One of the things it called for was monitors to go
into North Korea because the response you get from the North Korean
regime is that these are unfounded allegations and there is no
substance to them, to which our response is, "Well, that
is wearing a bit thin. There is a pattern to these allegations
that keeps coming forward. If, however, that is your view then
let's substantiate it through monitors". We have also made
requests to send representatives in to visit prisons and the judicial
system and those requests have been refused. Nevertheless we will
continue to press this; it is I think a genuinely very serious
concern. It is not an easy issue to resolve but we will keep pushing
it.
Q74 Sir John Stanley: I
have to say I am somewhat troubled by your answer if you are seeking
to cast doubt on the broad accuracy of these allegations being
made on the basis of absence of verification, and the point I
would put to you is that in recent years there have been a number
of people who have successfully escaped from concentration camps;
there are others who have defected like Mr Kwon Hyuk, who was,
as you know, the military attaché for the North
Korean regime in Beijing. Indeed, I might say that I have had
meetings in this House of Commons with those who have been escapees
and who have given me first hand accounts of what it has been
like to be in a North Korean concentration camp, so I would wish
finally just to urge you and your ministerial colleagues, if you
have any problems on verification, I hope you will take steps
to meet people first hand like Mr Kwon Hyuk and the considerable
number of other people who are now prepared to give evidence of
the experiences of the hell-hole prison camps and concentration
camps that exist in North Korea.
Mr Rammell: Sir
John, you misunderstand me. I am not for a minute casting doubts
on the accusations, and certainly the individuals that you have
met I have similarly met and I have no doubt about the accusations
that are being put, but when you have a regime that is consistently
abusing human rights and is cut off from the outside world one
of the things you need to do to start to make progress in stopping
them from doing that is to get an engagement and a recognition
that there is a problem, and without verification from the outside
it is difficult to get to first base on that issue. That is why
within the resolution that was put forward in Geneva last year
we strongly called for that, and why we keep requesting for the
right of access, particularly to prisons. I would also say, and
you and I have discussed this issue previously in your position
with the All Party Group, that I have gone out of my way to try
and increase parliamentary engagement on the issue of North Korea
because I have to say, in all the areas within my portfolio, the
one that in many senses troubles me most, for a whole series of
reasons including human rights, is North Korea and it does not
always, with honourable exceptions like your own, seem to get
that level of parliamentary concern on the floor of the House,
and this is a country that we need to be focusing on.
Q75 Chairman: There is
a visit of a North Korean delegation under the auspices of the
Inter Parliamentary Union shortly, and one question linking what
Sir John has said about China and North Korea is the problem of
North Korean refugees in China, and the fact that the individuals
who brought out the dossiers which were the basis of that BBC
report which Sir John has referred to are in detention in China.
What representations are we making to the Chinese Government about
these three, that they should be released and also generally about
their treatment, or the fact that they are failing to honour obligations
under the Convention in respect of those who flee from North Korea?
Mr Rammell: In
terms of the general issue it is one that we have raised consistently,
urging China to assess properly refugee claims from people coming
from North Korea. In terms of the particular, we led the way in
raising this in the European Union, and the European Union has
sought assurances from the Chinese Government about the safety
and wellbeing of the three North Korean refugees that you refer
to, and I will give a commitment to this meeting, because it was
my intention to do so, that we will raise that further.
Chairman: Can I say there
was general commendation of your swift action in calling in the
North Korean Ambassador after that appalling documentary.
Q76 Richard Ottaway: Minister,
can I take you back to the point I raised right at the beginning
about the shutting down of the Human Rights Project Fund? I have
just been thinking in the intervening couple of hours and I am
not sure I completely got the picture of what is happening. As
I understand it, the Project Fund is now being shut at the end
of this financial year, and we have a new global issues section
of which human rights is a part, which includes matters like the
environment, international crime, international security, the
global economy, etc, as well as human rights. It sets out a number
of strategic priorities which you did say are issues relating
to terrorism and international security. As I understand it there
are going to be one or two gaps on the human rights front—for
instance, monitoring in Africa is going to be much reduced and
in Latin America and, indeed, in China. Is that correct?
Mr Rammell: Let
me go through this stage by stage, and I have said previously
that I will follow this up in writing because I think it is an
important issue for us and it is important that you hold us to
account on it.[10]
Under the Foreign Office's strategic review we have gone through
a process of identifying what are the, if you like, thematic issues
which are of strategic importance to this country and what process
we can go through to realign our expenditure commitments to reflect
those priorities, and inevitably, if you are doing that, it will
mean that some areas that previously had a higher priority will
now have a lesser one. Specifically with regard to the new Global
Opportunities Fund, that was created through the previous spending
round to promote action on global issues in areas of strategic
importance to the United Kingdom, and human rights, good governance
and democracy projects will now be funded through those Global
Opportunities Fund programmes. There are five strands to it: engaging
with the Islamic world, reuniting Europe, strengthening relationships
with emerging markets, terrorism and climate change. Those are
the five strands of the GOF funding, which has meant that the
previous Human Rights Fund has ceased, and in a transitional process
GOF has taken over. In addition to that we also recognise and
have established for next year a sixth programme which is the
Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance Programme that specifically
will pick up strands of expenditure in those thematic areas that
have been identified as priorities by ministers but might not
hit the other priorities such as anti torture, abolition of the
death penalty, freedom of expression, child rights, rule of law
and discrimination. So what you were describing as a reprioritisation
process, which would mean less expenditure, say, in somewhere
like Latin America, might nevertheless now be picked up in one
of these strands under that process. All of that means, if you
look at the global financial situation, take account of the existing
Human Rights Project Fund which is being run down to half a million
pounds by the end of the current spending period, the new Human
Rights, Democracy and Good Governance programme which is being
established from the next financial year and those strands of
the Global Opportunities Fund which are being spent on human rights
issues, that you have an overall spending profile on human rights
priorities that goes from £6.6 million in 2001-02 to £14.5
million in 2005-06. That is my clear understanding of what we
are doing and I think it is right that we check whether that is
materialising, and certainly that is something I would intend
to do within the Department and I would urge you to keep us to
account. I will follow up in writing with this, because it is
a complicated financial picture, so that you are apprised of it.
Q77 Richard Ottaway: Of
that £14.5 million—and earlier you did say eleven point
something . . .
Mr Rammell: That
was 2003-04. I am now referring to other periods.
Q78 Richard Ottaway: That
covers the five strands. You painted, I have to say, a rather
confusing picture and I tried to follow it but there are five
strands, one of which you said, for example, was terrorism. If
one of those is terrorism it is taking the eye off the ball of
human rights, is it not, and you seem to be confirming from what
you were saying that there is less coverage in Africa, Latin America
and, more worryingly, China?
Mr Rammell: There
arguably is not. It depends, and that is why I am saying that
we need to monitor it and you need to keep us to account in monitoring
it. I think it depends how the expenditure profile goes forward.
Taking Latin America as an example and looking at the strands
under the new £2 million funding stream that we are establishing
from next year, I can certainly imagine in the field of child
rights, for example, in Guatemala or Honduras, projects being
funded under that stream so I do not think it is necessarily the
case that those countries will lose out. The funding stream of
the general GOF programmes, and you need to see these figures
in the letter I am going to write, which are £3 million for
this year, £6 million for next and £12 million for 2005-06,
is being spend on human rights projects. They are coming on under
the overall title, say, of engaging with the Islamic world: I
think it is probably the case that similar projects were funded
under the human rights project fund in the past but the fact is
now they are being focused on what is a strategic priority in
terms of the location of the world that it takes place in.
Q79 Richard Ottaway: I
look forward to getting your letter but, if you have your five
strategic priorities for £14 million replacing one priority
at £8 million, it looks like a downgrading to me, and I think
that is sending the wrong messages.
Mr Rammell: No.
Those five strands were already being picked up within the Human
Rights Project Fund. What is the £8.1 million for this year
was spending money in those areas. All that we have done is to
say that we need to do this better and we need to be clear what
our overall priorities are. Clearly there is a potential that,
say, for somewhere like Latin America you will lose out through
this process but that is partly why we have established that additional
£2 million fund which, say, in the area of child rights,
could mean there will be some additional on-going expenditure
within somewhere like Guatemala.
9 Please refer to the memorandum submitted by Mr Alistair
Nisbet, Ev 53. Back
10
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 35. Back
|
