Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
LORD MALLOCH-BROWN
KCMG, SUSAN HYLAND
AND STUART
ADAM
7 MAY 2008
Q80 Mr. Illsley: What is your response
to the suggestion from Human Rights Watch that the UK is trying
to undermine the laws on non-refoulement, returning a person to
a country that employs torture? The example it quotes is the case
of Saadi v. Italy. We sent more lawyers to that case than
the Italians did.
Lord Malloch-Brown: I am sure
that the latter point is true. In a globalised world where we
are trying to deal with cases of this kind, we must go on pressing
to find a way of returning people that functions legally and works.
For it to work legally, there must be the assurance that any individual
being returned will have proper protection of their rights. The
alternative is to accept that we are stuck with people who have
this kind of history, and that is not a politically acceptable
solution.
Q81 Sir Menzies Campbell: You describe
these cases as having been setbacks.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Yes.
Sir Menzies Campbell: For some people,
they might represent progress. Can I ask about the agreements
in general? It is one thing for two Foreign Secretaries to enter
into an agreement of that kind. However, in a police station,
50 miles from the capital of the country to which we have sent
an individual in reliance of one of these agreements, what possible
confidence can we have that under all circumstances, those who
have custody of that person will treat them in accordance with
the agreement?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I did just
want to pick up on one point made by Eric. The Saadi case was
with Libya, not Italy. That is the kind of issue that it would
be nice to win, so that we could see whether we could indeed create
a regime of assurances that could be monitored and that worked.
I take the point—it is not a defeat to lose some of these
cases at Court of Appeal level. It shows that the process is genuinely
subject to our courts and to legal review, at least until the
suspect leaves the territory.[4]
Q82 Sir Menzies Campbell: Have these
cases been appealed?
Lord Malloch-Brown: No.
Q83 Sir Menzies Campbell: You are
not taking them to the House of Lords?
Lord Malloch-Brown: We may be
appealing on one of them.
Sir Menzies Campbell: Perhaps you could
let us know about the detail.[5]
Q84 Mr. Hamilton: Minister, you will
be aware, I am sure, that in September 2006, half the members
of this Committee were allowed to visit Guantanamo Bay and Camp
Delta as part of the first foreign parliamentary visit ever, with
the help of the State Department. One of the things that we were
told there was that many of the detainees, whom the Americans
wanted to return to their countries of origin, would not be accepted
by their countries of origin. One explanation was that those countries
did not agree or believe that they were their own nationals. They
could not prove it one way or the other.
The other problem was people like the Chinese
Muslims, the Uyghurs, whom the Americans believe, probably with
good reason, would be tortured and treated badly if they were
returned to China. In that case, the Albanian Government agreed
to accept those Uyghurs and accommodate them in their own country,
which I imagine would be a rather strange culture shock.
The point remains that there are detainees who
remain simply because no country would take them. I wondered what
we could do to help with this process, either as the United Kingdom
itself, or through the European Union. Until those detainees are
found somewhere to live, Guantanamo will continue to exist. We
heard at the time that President Bush agreed with our assessment
that Guantanamo should be closed. Unfortunately, it would seem
that he has gone back on that and it is likely to be the next
President who closes Guantanamo. None the less, it will remain
there as long as there are detainees to fill the prison camp.
Lord Malloch-Brown: We think that
this is in a sense a self-made problem. Once you take people out
of normal legal process and put them in something like Guantanamo,
it becomes very hard to undo and get them back into a proper legal
process that allows conventional solutions between the US and
other countries about whether people should be returned. We have
probably more than carried our weight on this. We requested the
return of the so-called five British residents, although as you
know, not all of them had a right to live here. We were trying
to do our bit to deplete the case load. Certainly we have kept
a careful eye on others. You will recall that there are at least
two who might have come back but did not. We are trying to work
with the US wherever we can be helpful to bring down that case
load. We remain concerned about their habeas corpus rights in
the meantime.
Q85 Mr. Hamilton: Are other European
countries offering to accommodate some of those detainees, whether
or not there is a relationship between the detainee and the European
Union country?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I will need
to get back to you on that. I do not know.
Q86 Mr. Hamilton: Could you also
get back to us on whether you are working with other EU member
states to try to resolve the problem collectively?
Lord Malloch-Brown: Yes. I am
told that we have been talking to other European countries about
the possibility of taking other non-citizens, so we are certainly
engaging with them. I could give you more detail on exactly what
that amounts to.[6]
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you.
Q87 Chairman: You said that you had
requested the five non-British citizens but only three of them
have come. As far as I understand it, the Americans are reluctant
to release the other two.
Lord Malloch-Brown: That is correct,
due to security concerns.
Q88 Chairman: So on the one hand
the Americans are saying that they want people to take people
and on the other hand they are not.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Yes. I do
not think that you could possibly argue that the reason Guantanamo
remains open is solely that there is nowhere to put people. That
is one factor but there are also, in American eyes, hard-core
security cases for which they have not found another solution.
Chairman: Our report said that some of
the people there are extremely dangerous. There are hundreds of
people there—or there were, because some have been released—and
this is clearly an issue that we will come back to in future.
Q89 Andrew Mackinlay: This Committee
and its predecessor Committee, eight or nine years ago and in
subsequent reports, recommended that there should be regulation
of private security companies operating or recruiting from the
United Kingdom. Jack Straw and Denis MacShane made promises before
this Committee that this would be addressed, and there was a Green
Paper, but nothing happens. Why not? Who is obstructing this from
coming forward? When will it come, and is there not great concern
that the United Kingdom is going to be substantially embarrassed
at some stage if it has not regulated private security companies?
Lord Malloch-Brown: You are absolutely
right: the delay has not been acceptable, and we are hoping that
on our watch David Miliband and I will solve this persistent irritant.
I have to say that I do not think that the delay has been because
of any aberrant desire to prevent regulation. It has had more
to do with the fact that regulation is quite tricky for an international
business where most activities take place offshore. There is concern
about how we can develop a regulatory structure that is credible
and effective enough without just driving companies, if you like,
offshore to register somewhere else.
Since the review was completed in 2005, we have
looked very carefully at the different options, which are self-regulation
through a trade association, national regulation based on export
control and national regulation based on a kind of company licensing
system. Something that I added to that was that we have considered
how we could move towards international regulation because of
the feeling that this was very hard to treat as just a domestic
British problem. We are now in the late stages of trying to get
agreement across Whitehall on a way forward on this, so I hope
that relief is in sight.
Andrew Mackinlay: That is good news.
Chairman: Can we now move on to some
specific countries? Malcolm Moss.
Q90 Mr. Moss: The UN estimates that
there are some 2 million Iraqis displaced internally and up to
another 2 million who have fled to nearby countries, particularly
Syria and Jordan, which seem to have borne the brunt of the refugee
crisis. This Committee's report on global security and the Middle
East recommended that the Government should provide financial
assistance to those two countries, but in their response the Government
rejected that recommendation. Why do the Government continue to
set their face against financial assistance for both Syria and
Jordan, which are bearing the brunt of what for them is a considerable
humanitarian problem?
Lord Malloch-Brown: We are giving
assistance, but we are giving it through organisations such as
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee
of the Red Cross. I completely agree with you. This is a major
burden on both countries and on their social services—health
and education—as well as the economy more generally. In
the case of Syria particularly, a country about which we have
many reservations, obviously we have chosen to try to give assistance
through those intermediaries in ways that we hope will target
the refugee beneficiaries directly, rather than through general
budget support. I think that we need to keep this under review,
because, frankly, I think that the world as a whole needs to be
more generous to the refugees in those two countries than it has
been so far.
Q91 Sir John Stanley: Minister, clearly,
getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a substantial human rights plus
from many standpoints, but equally it has to be faced that following
our invasion some very serious human rights reversals have flowed
directly from it. One, just to referred to by Malcolm Moss, is
the millions of people who have been displaced from their homes.
The other one, which I attach huge importance to, as I am sure
you would, is the fact that women's rights in may parts of Iraq
are now going backwards and look set to be going backwards further.
We have all been appalled by the recent cases of so-called honour
killings, whereby a father can murder his daughter, be taken into
police custody for a few hours and then be released without charge.
We know that 100-plus women in the Basra area, for whom we have
some human rights responsibility, quite apart from security responsibility,
have lost their lives for failing to comply with Islamic scarf
requirements and so on. How important is this issue to the British
Government and what are they doing to stop the degradation of
women's rights taking place under our noses in Iraq, when we still
have responsibilities there?
Lord Malloch-Brown: For all Saddam
Hussein's appalling record on other aspects of human rights, you
are correct that on women's rights he was relatively progressive.
I have heard many Iraqi women make that case to me since the invasion,
including a Minister who then lost her life shortly afterwards
in the violence. It is an issue that one must be vigilant about.
What a terrible consequence it would be if the rights of women
were set back.
You refer to Basra, which is where there has
been an upsurge of honour killings and the reasons cited have
been provocative dress, not the headscarf and so on. All of that
is very concerning, but a clear commitment was recently made by
the Iraqi police service in Basra to ensure that women's rights
are observed and respected in the south and that included the
establishment of a female police unit. Further, officials at our
embassy in Baghdad are on notice to raise this as regularly as
they can with Government officials. Obviously, your colleague
the right hon. Ann Clwyd, as the Prime Minister's special envoy
for human rights in Iraq, has made a big point of raising the
issue at all levels whenever she visits the country.
Q92 Sir Menzies Campbell: Is there
any way that we can hold the Iraqi Government's feet to the fire
on this? It is one thing to get promises, it is another to see
that they are implemented.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Yes, we can
monitor and track and we absolutely have to do so because after
all we have a few things to hold them to. There are projects,
some of which we support, on judicial reform to try to enhance
the capabilities of the ministries of human rights and women,
as well as the judiciary itself. The Iraqi constitution has decent
provisions in it for the protection of women and above all else,
Iraq is not Afghanistan: this is not a traditional, conservative
society where you are trying to root out a centuries-old tradition,
but a country that has known a secular respect for women. We absolutely
can use our place as a prime supporter of the country to insist
that these issues are met.
There has been an upsurge in killings in Basra.
We hope that it is not a long-term phenomenon and that it can
be contained by these statements by the police and their efforts
to address it. We hope that this is not going to grow into a major
issue and we will do everything we can to stop that happening.
Q93 Mr. Moss: Human Rights Watch
claims that NATO and US-led forces killed at least 300 civilians
in Afghanistan in 2007. Why does the FCO human rights report not
even mention that this was a concern?
Lord Malloch-Brown: Good point.
Would either of my officials like to answer why it is not in the
report?
Stuart Adam: I cannot give you
an answer on that—I will check with the desk and get back
to you.
Chairman: We will perhaps get a letter.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Absolutely,
we are happy to do that.[7]
Q94 Mr. Moss: May I also ask why
the international community has failed to implement the peace,
reconciliation and justice action plan that would, we expect,
combat impunity?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I am not sure
how that fits with the Afghan amnesty law, which has actually
offered a lot of Afghans who were involved in war crimes a pardon
or amnesty in return for their participation in the national reconciliation
process. We are quite worried that that will allow impunity, and
we have been monitoring all of this quite carefully, along with
our EU and other international partners. Let me just come back
to your first question and say that even though I cannot give
you an explanation of why this is not in the report, we are obviously
extremely concerned in general about civilian casualties in Afghanistan
as a result of ISAF or other US military actions. As part of ISAF,
we make sure that each of these incidents is investigated very
thoroughly.
Q95 Mr. Illsley: In Burma, the situation
is well documented, and the report maintains that the UK has played
a leading role in drawing attention to what is happening there.
Amnesty has argued—prior to what happened at the weekend—that
the UK should perhaps take the lead in imposing financial sanctions
against Burma, presumably targeted at the regime rather than the
ordinary public. Since the cyclone has occurred, there are debates
and questions about whether aid should be provided. We are now
getting a contradiction, because on one hand we are talking about
financial sanctions against a regime and on the other we are trying
to work out how we can get aid to those who are suffering. Do
you have a view on those points or an update on where we are in
relation to that?
Lord Malloch-Brown: First, I shall
give an update. We committed £5 million yesterday, but for
that to be effective the Burmese authorities must show a much
greater willingness to allow international assessment and operational
teams into the country to distribute aid. As of this moment, even
members of the initial UN assessment team have not been granted
visas to enter the country. Classically, the Government want to
be given the aid and allowed to distribute it themselves, but
we just do not think that they have the capability to do that
properly, let alone the will. The last thing we want to do is
make humanitarian aid conditional, but we just do not see how
the emergency supplies are going to get out and be distributed
where they are needed across the country without a strong international
presence. If that occurs, it will at least have the temporary
effect of opening up the country to foreigners in a way that has
not happened for a long time.
There was a similar phenomenon in Kashmir briefly
after the earthquake, when people crossed the line of control
between Pakistan and India in a way that had not happened in a
generation, so there might be some similar beneficial effects
from this in Burma. More broadly, the 10 May vote on the constitution
in our view represented the fact that the Burmese authorities
were buckling down, closing the hatches and resisting pressure
even for international human rights change, let alone political
change.
Q96 Mr. Horam: I imagine that you
are watching the situation in China closely, given the imminence
of the Olympic games and all that goes with that. Amnesty International
has argued that the Olympic games have actually resulted in China
becoming more repressive, partly because of the situation in Tibet.
Is there any evidence that China has become more repressive since
the Olympic games became a feature on the world scene?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I know the
Amnesty report, respect it and have heard Kate Allen, who has
given evidence to this Committee, make the argument. It is a bit
more complicated, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. Yes,
there have evidently been clearances to allow Olympic facilities
to be established, and goodness knows whether community rights
were as well respected as they might have been. There were no
hearings of the sort that will no doubt surround the development
of Olympic infrastructure here in London. However, I see it as
a net gain for openness because it led to a situation in which
press access was at least temporarily granted to the whole country.
We will have to see whether it is now provided to Tibet. We are
assured that it will be. I think that China felt that it was on
its best behaviour to impress the world.
In general, the Olympics was a key stepping
stone in the process of engaging China in the world. All that
has happened in Tibet, leading finally to the resumption of talks
between the Dalai Lama's representative and the Chinese authorities,
would not have happened if the Olympics had not been on the way.
I think that it has been a win for human rights, but I recognise
that there are negative arguments as well.
Q97 Mr. Horam: Human Rights Watch
argues that the Prime Minister should make his attendance at the
games conditional on progress on human rights. Do you agree?
Lord Malloch-Brown: I do not know
what the benchmark would be. We have been extremely clear in our
messages to the Chinese that, first, the Dalai Lama appears to
have met the conditions that they set of renouncing violence and
calling not for independence, but for Tibetan autonomy; and, secondly,
that on the basis of that, they should resume their negotiations
with him. They have done so. I am not sure what the realistic
further demands would be. Our view has been that we must not go
down the road of highly conditioning our attendance at the Olympics.
I think that we have got that right.
Q98 Mr. Horam: You do not think that
we should go down this road.
Lord Malloch-Brown: No, I do not
think that we should go down the road of conditioning it further.
Tibet posed a huge challenge. Now that there are talks, I think
that we should expect progress. We should not ease up on the Chinese
and say, "You are talking. Problem over". We should
be pressing absolutely consistently for the Chinese to come to
some kind of accommodation with the Dalai Lama. I am not sure
that suddenly saying that the Prime Minister will not go unless
there is an agreement on Tibet or unless the death sentence is
removed as a penalty would be constructive or helpful. We have
the right mixture of pressure and continued commitment to China
coming out into the world, which is best able to achieve results.
Q99 Mr. Hamilton: In fact, the Dalai
Lama has made it clear that the Olympics should not be boycotted.
He is fully supportive of that view.
Lord Malloch-Brown: Yes.
4 Note by witness: I refer to the Saadi cases
as being "with Libya, not Italy". Saadi was against
Italy so this is incorrect. Back
5
Ev 65 Back
6
Ev 65 Back
7
Ev 65 Back
| 
