Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)

MR BILL RAMMELL MP, MS PHILIPPA DREW AND MS ALEXANDRA HALL HALL

11 JANUARY 2005

  Q120 Chairman: You will undertake to do that?

  Mr Rammell: I will certainly undertake to do that.[2]

  Q121 Mr Maples: Minister, in your answer on Guantanamo Bay you said something quite interesting, which is that you focused primarily on the UK citizens there, firstly, because you felt we had some locus in talking to the United States government about them. I suppose that is really saying that when you talk about human rights generally in a country, how they treat their own citizens, you are kind of lecturing them, but when you are talking about individually, your citizens, we have a responsibility, or our Government has a responsibility to those people. In the Foreign Office's answer to our last report—actually it was in relation to Saudi Arabia but it seemed to me to be a general point—the Foreign Office said, "The welfare of UK nationals abroad is of paramount concern." Do I understand from this that you put the abuse of the human rights of UK nationals abroad in a slightly different category? I do not mean a better or worse one but a slightly different one from the abuse by countries of their own citizens' human rights?

  Mr Rammell: I am not saying we are not concerned about abuse of human rights of foreign nationals, but our first responsibility is obviously to British citizens.

  Q122 Mr Maples: Do you as a minister, does the Foreign Office, therefore, find it easier in those circumstances, where its one of our nationals whose human rights have been abused, to take this up in strong terms with the Government concerned, whereas if it is their own nationals whose human rights are being abused it is not quite so easy to take it up in strong terms?

  Mr Rammell: It does not mean we do not do it in respect of other countries' nationals; certainly we do do it. I think if you look at our track record, we do it effectively on behalf of our own nationals in a number of different countries in very difficult circumstances.

  Q123 Mr Maples: You have probably done this yourself, but do you personally find it easier to be more robust with the officials of a foreign government in relation to our own citizens than you do in relation to other citizens?

  Mr Rammell: I suppose if you are asking me is it easier to make the argument? Yes, at one level it is, in terms of your own citizens.

  Q124 Mr Maples: Not intellectually, but in the sense of "I have some responsibility for these people and I am talking to you about them"?

  Mr Rammell: Yes.

  Q125 Mr Maples: In your answer to us last time you said, and I imagine this was a general point, it was in relation to the section on Saudi Arabia, you said, "The welfare of UK nationals abroad is of paramount concern. We take all the allegations of torture or ill-treatment seriously and will, if appropriate, raise our concerns with government. We may also request that a prompt impartial investigation be carried out into the allegations." Can you give me any examples of where we have requested not necessarily prompt but an impartial investigation of allegations?

  Mr Rammell: Certainly in the case of Egypt with the detainees there we have requested a full investigation into the men's allegations.

  Q126 Mr Maples: Those are the three British people who have been detained?

  Mr Rammell: Yes, and, of course, the key issue there is that those men are still under detention, and that is why we felt it was right and proper in those circumstances to request that investigation.

  Q127 Mr Maples: Has that happened or been granted?

  Mr Rammell: No, it has not as of yet, and that is something we are still pursuing.

  Q128 Mr Maples: Are there any other examples of where we have adopted this policy of requesting a prompt impartial investigation?

  Mr Rammell: I am sure there are others, and I will happily follow up in writing. I have not immediately to hand examples of where we have—. I am sorry, the other one is Guantanamo Bay.

  Q129 Mr Maples: We have formally requested an impartial investigation?

  Mr Rammell: Specifically in respect of Mr Begg, who has made allegations about his ill-treatment, we asked for an investigation by the US government. They came back. We have now asked for further clarification and a further investigation.

  Q130 Mr Maples: As regards Egypt and the United States, have we ever made such a request? In the last five years, let us say, have we made such a request of the Saudi Arabian government?

  Mr Rammell: No. The difference, of course, with both Egypt and Guantanamo is that in respect of Saudi Arabia the detainees have now been released, and we had some considerable discussion on this in last year's session, and I am conscious of that. The focus of our efforts was to secure the release of the detainees within Saudi Arabia, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that we expended enormous diplomatic efforts in that regard at the highest level within government to the lowest level within government and, had it not been for that diplomatic effort, I am not sure that the men would have been released today as they are.

  Q131 Mr Maples: I am interested in whether—in the case of Egypt those people are still detained—we are requesting an impartial investigation? We have to be careful about this particular case that we have referred to because it is sub judice and we have this ridiculous rule where we are not to talk about it, but if we can talk around it in general policy terms, are you saying that you might adopt one of two different approaches? You are saying that it was appropriate in Egypt where the people are still in detention, but it might not be appropriate in Saudi Arabia where people are in detention but we are working in a different way for them. I do not quite understand that. When you say, "We have pursued particular cases very robustly", it seems to me that it is absolutely outrageous that any other country should treat our citizens in this way, and that, of course, it is something that we should pursue, but countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia must be made to understand that they cannot do this again to our citizens and that if they do we will be requesting prompt impartial investigation. It does not sound like a very big threat, nevertheless it is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I am surprised that you have only given me two examples?

  Mr Rammell: I am sure there are others. I do not have those immediately to hand.

  Q132 Mr Maples: Can you let us have a note very specifically of occasions in the last four or five years in which we have made that request. One of the other things you said was that there was then some follow-up correspondence with the Foreign Office on this issue and at the end Chris Stanton's[3] letter to our clerk, which you have probably got—it is a letter dated 1 November—but I will just read the point: "The UK already supports the use of targeted sanctions to coerce regimes to change their behaviour", and then you draw a distinction between coercion and punitive measures. In what circumstances would be used targeted sanctions and in what circumstances have you used them? Perhaps it is better to ask you where we have used them than where we would use them?

  Mr Rammell: We have just been discussing a case where we would use targeted sanctions (in the case of Zimbabwe) where I think that was the right thing to do. I come back to a point. You are suggesting that it is surprising that in different circumstances we adopt different approaches and different tactics. I have to say, I do not find that surprising in the least. It is a judgment you have to make in every circumstance, firstly, to undertake an analysis of the country and the way it works and, secondly, what is the most effective way to secure the release and justice for your citizens, and that will not be the same response in every situation.

  Q133 Mr Maples: Of course I understand that. It was just that you used Egypt as an example of somewhere we had sought an impartial investigation, and one of the reasons you used for that is detainees were still there?

  Mr Rammell: Yes.

  Q134 Mr Maples: I was wondering whether you were drawing a distinction in some way between where they were still under detention and where they were not. That is all?

  Mr Rammell: There may be, but one of the judgments that you have to make as well, and let's be very precise on this, and I am talking in the hypothetical now, but if you feel you are making progress in terms of moving towards the release of your citizens, you have to make a judgment about whether at that particular moment, whilst people are  in detention, a demand for an impartial investigation is going to help you in that process of getting those people released or not.

  Q135 Mr Maples: I understand that, and of course one understands that circumstances are different. If we can come back to the targeted sanctions, you mentioned Zimbabwe. Are there any other examples? In Zimbabwe, on the whole, our problem there is that they are maltreating their own citizens. Are there cases where countries have mistreated our citizens where we have used targeted sanctions, again, in the last four or five years?

  Mr Rammell: I think as a general rule, and I will check on this, we use targeted sanctions against countries where there are very, very significant human rights abuses taking place. Where we are talking about our consular function in respect of individual British nationals, and normally, and I cannot think of a case where that has not been the case, we are talking about a very small number of people, I think by and large our prime objective is to secure the release of those people, and I am not sure in those circumstances that targeted sanctions, which is very likely to lead the country to turn its back on the EU, would be the best way to secure those.

  Q136 Mr Maples: I am not suggesting these would be things one would necessarily trumpet from the roof tops, but the people concerned might be banned from travelling to Britain, for instance, as we have done with Zimbabwe?

  Mr Rammell: It is almost like the nuclear option. Once you go to that option, you have almost definitively lost the argument. I genuinely do not believe, in terms of our consular function, that smart or targeted sanctions would be the best way to secure justice or release for your own nationals. I think there might be better ways to try and achieve that.

  Q137 Mr Maples: It might be appropriate, after the person has been released, to try to make sure it does not happen again?

  Mr Rammell: I know what this is focusing on. Certainly if we are talking about Saudi Arabia, we will continue to express both publicly and privately our view that there is an obligation on every state that is a party to the Convention against Torture to have prompt impartial investigations wherever there are reasonable grounds to conclude that torture has taken place.

  Q138 Mr Maples: As you are going over the requests for impartial investigation, if you could also let us have a note on targeted sanctions and, if so, when in the last four or five years we have implemented targeted sanctions against a country that has mistreated our citizens.

  Mr Rammell: I will give you a response now and follow it up in writing.[4] My instinct and memory is that we do not believe that targeted or smart sanctions is the most effective way to resolve conflict in cases. I take a lot of convincing that that is the best way forward.

  Q139 Mr Maples: A third area in which you said we acted (and this is in the formal response in your report) is, "We work closely with our EU partners and through international fora." Can you tell me how we are working with our EU partners? Presumably many EU countries have had similar problems with their citizens being mistreated in foreign countries. Do we work together in some way to try to collectively bring our point of view to bear that it is not acceptable that an EU citizen should be treated like this, or is this rather ad hoc?

  Mr Rammell: No, we do. You speak out about human rights concerns both in respect of your own citizens and other foreign nationals as an individual country, but where we can do it together with other countries, and the principal forum in which we can do that is the European Union, it makes sense to try and do that. Again, referring back to the EU, one of the positive changes in terms of the EU tackling human rights concerns, and this year is the first time it has come in, is that all Heads of Mission of individual Member States have a responsibility to produce a [joint] report on that country in terms of human rights abuses in that year, which then comes back through the council working group; so that we do collate that information and we do try to work in a coordinated fashion.


2   Ev 72 Back

3   Head of the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Directorate Back

4   Ev 73 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 26 March 2005