House of Commons - The FCO's human rights work in 2012

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

6 Business and human rights

Business and Human Rights Strategy

103. In November 2011, the then FCO Minister with responsibility for human rights, Jeremy Browne MP, wrote to the Committee Chairman saying that work on developing a cross-Government strategy on business and human rights was "proceeding well".[198] The FCO's 2011 Human Rights Report (published in April 2012) stated that the strategy would be launched in mid-2012, adding that its purpose was "to provide clear guidelines to British businesses about the Government's expectations of their behaviour overseas in respect of the human rights of people who contribute to or are affected by their operations".[199] As part of the strategy, the FCO would reinforce training for government staff who come into contact with UK companies at home and abroad; and it would update the Business and Human Rights toolkit, used by staff at overseas posts.

104. The original target date for publication of the Strategy was September 2012 but this was not met.[200] Baroness Warsi explained to us in evidence in July 2013 that she "might be part of the problem" behind the delay as she had seen an early draft soon after taking up her post and had asked officials to do further work on it.[201] On 4 September 2013, however, the Government finally published an action plan on business and human rights, titled Good Business: Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.[202] The action plan is designed to meet the needs of companies which "need certainty about the Government's expectations of them on human rights" and which "expect support in meeting those expectations". It sets out the UK's obligations under customary international law, UK law and agreements; identifies principles which underlie the approach which businesses should take in order to respect human rights wherever they operate; lists sources of guidance; and describes options for remedy arising from human rights abuses.

105. The action plan was published after we had taken evidence for this inquiry, and we have not yet been able to assess it in detail. In our report last year on the FCO's human rights work in 2011, we observed that a strategy which was "couched exclusively in terms of guidance and voluntary initiatives", while undoubtedly worthwhile, would not, on its own, meet the spirit of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the "Ruggie Principles"), which envisage that states will take "appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication".[203] We also encouraged the Government:

· To remain open to the possibility of extending extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover actions by UK businesses, or by firms operating under contract to the UK Government, which have an impact on human rights; and

· To consider linking provision of Government procurement opportunities, investment support and export credit guarantees to UK Businesses' human rights records overseas.

106. 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. We intend to assess the value of the action plan at a later date.

Export controls

107. Last year, Amnesty International drew our attention to "credible allegations" that businesses (not necessarily UK-based) were supplying telecommunications technology to certain countries despite "convincing" reports that it was being used to violate freedom of expression on the internet (Libya, Egypt, China and Iran were cited as examples).[204] Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has noted that governments in "the Arab world" had used powerful internet surveillance technologies sold by Western companies to target human rights defenders and suspected dissidents;[205] and allegations of such activity have been made in written submissions to our inquiry into the UK's relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.[206]

108. We recommended last year that the Government should set out the scope for controlling the supply by UK nationals, or by companies based in the UK, of telecommunications equipment for which there is a reasonable expectation that it might be used to restrict freedom of expression on the internet.[207] The Government explicitly welcomed that recommendation and pointed out that some such equipment might already be subject to export control under the EU Dual-Use Regulation. However, it went on to say that where such equipment was not currently subject to controls, the Government was "committed to working with international partners through the Wassenaar Arrangement in order to agree a specific control list of goods, software and technology", and that work in this area was expected to continue in 2013.[208]

109. Despite the Government's warm response to the Committee's recommendation, the section of this year's FCO Report on Human Rights and Democracy dealing with freedom of expression on the internet makes no mention of any past or planned work on drawing up a list of controlled goods; nor is it listed among the subjects discussed by the FCO's Freedom of Expression on the Internet Expert Group, chaired by Baroness Warsi.[209] Amnesty International told us that it had no recollection of discussion on the subject at meetings of the Group, although it believed that it had been "mentioned in passing".[210]

110. There appears to be a distinct change of tone in the FCO's pronouncements on controls over this type of material. The indication given to the Committee last year that work would take place in 2013 on drawing up a list of equipment which was not covered by the EU Dual-Use Regulation but which might nonetheless merit controls seems to have come to nothing, and the Minister told us that "I am not sure whether we will draw up a definitive list". The FCO now argues that this is "a fast-moving area" and that "we need to allow that space to remain as free as possible for businesses to thrive and for innovation to continue".[211] The Government's new action plan on business and human rights, published on 4 September 2013, does however announce that guidance will be developed "to address the risks posed by exports of information and communications technology that are not subject to export control but which might have impacts on human rights, including freedom of expression online".[212]

111. 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.

198 Not published Back

199 Cm 8339, page 113 Back

200 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121030084443/http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/9/35 Back

201 Q 163 Back

202 Cm 8695 Back

203 Third Report from the Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 116, paragraph 109 Back

204 Third Report from the Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 116, paragraph 116 Back

205 Human Rights Watch World Report 2013, page 19: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf Back

206 See submission from Bill Marczak, Bahrain Watch, to the Committee's inquiry into UK relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, published on the Committee's webpages at www.parliament.uk Back

207 Third Report from the Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 116, paragraph 117 Back

208 Cm 8506, response to recommendation 32 Back

209 Cm 8593, pages 36 and 37 Back