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)
| 
