The FCO's human rights work in 2012 - Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


Conclusions and recommendations


Countries of concern

1.  We welcome the FCO's decision to define more clearly the criteria for designating 'countries of concern', although we question why the extent of the UK's engagement in a particular country or the impact of the human rights situation there on wider UK interests should be regarded as factors in evaluating human rights standards. We recommend that these criteria no longer apply. (Paragraph 11)

The 2013 CHOGM in Colombo

2.  We recommend that the Prime Minister should obtain assurances from the Sri Lankan Government that people who approach him to talk about human rights while he is in Sri Lanka to attend the CHOGM do not face reprisals or harassment by security forces. (Paragraph 16)

3.  On the information available to us, the policy followed by the FCO during discussions at the 2009 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Port of Spain on venues for future Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings seems to have been inconsistent. The FCO objected to a proposal that Sri Lanka might host the 2011 CHOGM on human rights grounds but did not obstruct a proposal that it might do so in 2013; nor did it insist that Sri Lanka's right to host in 2013 should be conditional on improvements in human rights. That approach now appears timid. The UK could and should have taken a more principled stand in 2009, and should have taken a more robust stand after the 2011 CHOGM in the light of the continuing serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. (Paragraph 20)

Sri Lanka

4.  We recommend that the FCO, in its response to this report, state whether it still holds the view that there is no substantiated evidence of torture or maltreatment of people who have been returned by UK immigration authorities to Sri Lanka. (Paragraph 23)

5.  It is a matter of concern to us that the UK Border Agency's assessment of risk to Sri Lankans on being returned from the UK to Sri Lanka, which will have been partly based upon information provided by FCO staff in Sri Lanka, was found by the courts to be flawed and in need of revision. The FCO should examine whether it could have enabled the UK Border Agency itself, rather than the courts, to have reached the conclusion that a change to the guidance on risk was required. We also observe that the FCO's Strategy on the Prevention of Torture makes no mention of the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture and how the FCO should play its part in ensuring that these are met. We recommend that the FCO amend its Torture Prevention Strategy accordingly. (Paragraph 26)

Burma

6.  We recommend that the FCO should press the Burmese Government for a clear statement on what influence the committee set up to review the cases of political prisoners in detention will have on decisions on who qualifies as a 'political prisoner'; what procedure, if any, there will be for challenging any decision not to release a particular detainee on the grounds that he or she is not a political prisoner; and whether releases will be unconditional. (Paragraph 29)

7.  Shocking acts of violence against the Rohingya minority have taken place in Rakhine State. The report of the Rakhine Investigation Commission is only a preliminary step towards bringing to justice those responsible for serious human rights abuses. The FCO is right to encourage a national process for investigation and prosecution of crimes in Rakhine State, but it should signal that it does not rule out support for an internationally-led process if the Burmese Government fails to show a serious intention to act. We recommend that the FCO should urge opposition leaders in Burma, as well as Government figures, to be more forthright in condemning those responsible for the violence in Rakhine State in 2012. (Paragraph 34)

8.  We are satisfied, on balance, that the decision to lift economic sanctions against Burma in April 2013 was the right one. Serious reservations remain about the continued incarceration of political prisoners and the failure, so far, to bring to justice those responsible for intercommunal violence; but the rate of progress in many areas, such as elections and freedom of speech, has been remarkable, and the Burmese government is to be commended for what it has achieved. In order to ensure that progress is sustained, the UK should be prepared to advocate re-imposition of economic sanctions on Burma if undertakings by the Burmese government to improve human rights standards in the country are not followed through. (Paragraph 36)

Russia

9.  The 2014 Winter Games in Sochi provide a platform for concerns about human rights in Russia to be voiced in a way which is difficult for the host country to brush aside, and we do not support a boycott. (Paragraph 42)

10.  The proposed visa facilitation agreement for Russian nationals to enter the Schengen Area offers a rare opportunity for those EU Member States which are in Schengen to apply collective pressure on Russia. While we recognise that the UK has its own visa arrangements and, because it is not in Schengen, is not in a position to block a decision by Schengen Area countries, we encourage the FCO to put the case forcefully to fellow EU Member States to either delay assent to the proposed visa facilitation agreement or make it conditional upon evidence of an improvement in human rights conditions in Russia. (Paragraph 44)

Human rights and counter-terrorism

11.  We agree with the principles outlined by the Foreign Secretary in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute in February 2013, on the approach to counter-terrorism and respect for human rights, although we acknowledge the scepticism in some quarters about whether they will lead to meaningful change. We believe that the significance of the accountability to Parliament and to the wider public which flows from ministerial oversight and approval for work of this nature should not be underestimated. (Paragraph 50)

The Detainee Inquiry

12.  We encourage the Government to take whatever steps it can—including swift publication of as much as possible of Sir Peter Gibson's report on the Detainee Inquiry's preparatory work—to ensure that the process of inquiring into allegations of rendition or improper treatment of detainees by the UK Government and its security and intelligence agencies does not come to a complete halt while criminal investigations are under way. (Paragraph 52)

13.  We are disappointed that no attempts appear to have been made to initiate discussions between the Government and human rights bodies as to how the successor inquiry to the Detainee Inquiry might proceed. We believe that it is incumbent on both sides—not just the Government—to take steps to work towards a resolution. (Paragraph 55)

Deportation with assurances

14.  We commend the FCO for providing information to us on monitoring arrangements for people held in detention having been returned by the UK under DWA arrangements. We request that the FCO report every twelve months to this Committee on the effectiveness of monitoring arrangements and on whether any allegations of abuse have been reported. Given the uncertainty over the independence of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, we recommend that, in the absence of any acceptable alternative, the UK should negotiate with the Ethiopian Government to secure a right of access by British Embassy officials to people detained in Ethiopia following deportation from the UK with assurances, to complement the monitoring by the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. We seek assurances that Embassy staff already monitoring treatment of detainees in Algeria receive suitable training, such as that offered by the International Committee of the Red Cross to its staff carrying out similar work. (Paragraph 60)

The return of Abu Qatada

15.   We welcome the Government's decision to use a treaty base for assurances on the treatment of persons returned to Jordan, such as Abu Qatada. It may have been instrumental in securing Abu Qatada's return and, with hindsight, could perhaps have done so months or years ago had the Government chosen to follow this route sooner. We note with approval that the Government has not ruled out the use of treaties to underpin DWA arrangements with other countries. (Paragraph 65)

16.  We ask the FCO to provide us with an update on the progress of the review of DWA policy by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. (Paragraph 66)

The Prevention of Sexual Violence against Women in Conflict Initiative

17.  We join others in commending the Secretary of State for taking the lead in conceiving and promoting the Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. (Paragraph 70)

18.  We believe that addressing impunity is an essential part of prevention. There is a pressing need for concerted efforts at an international level to develop a recognition of degrading crimes of sexual violence for what they are and to bring to justice those responsible. We believe that to give this aspect of the Initiative particular prominence is a strength rather than a failing. (Paragraph 75)

19.  We strongly welcome the formation of the Team of UK Experts and support its work in helping to build national capacity in investigating allegations of sexual violence, gathering evidence and supporting those who have suffered. Demands upon the Team's expertise may in time grow beyond its current capacity, and we recommend that the Government should encourage other countries to contribute skilled personnel and funding to support the Team's work. (Paragraph 78)

Legislation outlawing violence against women

20.  The act of passing legislation outlawing violence against women is not a 'big step forward'—as has been claimed—if the legislation is not implemented. The FCO's pragmatic approach towards securing better implementation of the law in Afghanistan and elsewhere is understandable, but we are not as optimistic as is the Minister that progress will be made in Afghanistan once ISAF troops have withdrawn: if anything, we believe that a reversal is more likely. Many assurances have been given by the FCO over the years about its support for women's and girls' rights in Afghanistan: the emphasis should now be on ensuring that gains made so far are not reversed. The FCO, in its response to this Report, should explain how it plans to achieve this. (Paragraph 83)

Children's human rights

21.  We continue to believe that the FCO should do more to gain the confidence of children's rights groups in its human rights work. As a relatively simple step, we recommend that the Foreign Secretary appoint a child rights expert to his Advisory Group on Human Rights: this would provide reassurance to children's rights groups that the FCO is alert to the particular demands of supporting children's human rights worldwide. (Paragraph 86)

Freedom of expression in broadcast media

22.  It is clear to us that the existing structure for international telecommunications regulation is poorly suited to dealing with more political disputes concerning media freedom. (Paragraph 96)

23.  Effective solutions to the problem of jamming of radio and television broadcasts lie principally with satellite providers, which have a commercial interest in ensuring that the services which their satellites carry reach their audience unimpeded. We encourage all providers, not just those suffering jamming, to recognise the value of investing in technology which protects broadcast signals from interference. Given that national interests are involved, we see a role for the Government in encouraging a concerted approach by satellite providers. (Paragraph 98)

24.  At a time when delivery of broadcast services is moving inexorably from old platforms to new ones, from short-wave radio services to television and to new media, the BBC needs to think sooner rather than later about what scale of investment will be needed in order to preserve open access to its internet-based services for international audiences. In the short term, while the technologies are relatively experimental and unproven, a collaborative approach with other broadcasters would seem to be the most economically viable option. (Paragraph 101)

25.  The right of access to information, across borders, is fundamental. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, the BBC World Service makes a huge contribution to the projection of the UK, its values and strengths, across the world. It would be astonishing if that work were to be diminished purely because the BBC lacked the resources to protect its broadcasts from interference by states where tolerance and freedom of expression are not entrenched. We urge the BBC, as the future funder of the BBC World Service, to recognise in future funding plans the need to provide the resources necessary to afford that protection. (Paragraph 102)

Business and human rights

26.  We welcome the publication by the Government of an action plan on business and human rights and commend it for enabling the UK to be the first country to set out guidance to companies on integrating human rights into their operations. (Paragraph 106)

Export controls

27.  The FCO should not simply sit back and allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint in developing and exporting equipment and software which, although not subject to export controls under the EU Dual Use Regulation, could nonetheless limit or punish freedom of expression on the internet. Drawing up guidance on the issue for businesses is a welcome step; but the FCO, together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, should also be following closely the development of such equipment and should be ready to intervene by controlling exports if there is obvious potential for abuse by end-users. We recommend that the FCO, in its response to this Report, should indicate what mechanism the Government has in place to maintain its awareness of product development in this field and exports of such products. (Paragraph 111)


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 17 October 2013