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
| 
