Foreign AffairsSupplementary written evidence from the Rt Hon Baroness Warsi PC, Senior Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

I undertook to write to you with further information on some topics that arose during my evidence session on the Foreign & Commonwealth Office 2012 Human Rights Report on 9 July. Taking the issues in the order in which they arose during the session:

1. The Committee asked about the publication of the Interim Report of the Gibson Detainee Inquiry. I thought you might welcome some further clarification. As I explained the Government is carefully considering the contents of the Interim Report. It is important for the Government to be able to publish as full an account of the Inquiry’s work as possible, without compromising national security and consistent with our legal obligations. We are undertaking checks to ensure that the report will not prejudice the ongoing police investigation and, although no date has been set, we hope to be in a position to publish as full a version as possible of the report as soon as possible.

2. You asked why there had been a six month delay in writing to the Committee on Deportation with Assurances (DWA) monitoring arrangements. Following the Committee’s request in December 2012, the Rt. Hon. Hugo Swire MP wrote on 27 March to confirm our intention to respond fully, and I responded substantively on 3 June. Let me apologise once again for this delay, which resulted from a misunderstanding over whether there would be a further specific request from the Committee. When it became clear in March that a response was outstanding officials worked quickly to provide one. The response was produced in consultation with DWA partners across HMG and I can assure the Committee that it was a comprehensive response, drawing on the most up-to-date and accurate information available.

3. You asked for details on project activity to support women’s leadership at a national level in Afghanistan. This support will be provided through the Department for International Development’s Women’s Political Participation Programme. Through the Asia Foundation, DFID will provide up to £4.5 million to help strengthen women’s political participation as candidates, leaders and voters in the run-up to presidential, parliamentary and provincial council elections between now and the end of 2015.

4. The programme will do this in two ways: by building the political capacity of female candidates through training and mentoring; and by facilitating formal and informal community level discussions, to help broaden support for female Afghan political candidates. This work will form part of a wider programme to strengthen political governance institutions and processes in Afghanistan. The women’s political participation component is being fast-tracked because of the elections planned for 2014. The programme complements our ongoing assistance to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), of which the UK is one of the largest supporters.

5. On the UK’s wider project work to support women’s rights in Afghanistan, we provide grants to strengthen civil society organisations in Afghanistan through the DFID-led ‘Tawanmandi’ programme. In the first two rounds of grant selection, 35 grants were awarded to organisations which either focus on women’s rights or have women’s rights as one of their main components. These include programmes on improving access to justice for women and support for advocacy of women’s rights.

6. We have also increased our support for women’s economic empowerment. For example, DFID’s small-scale training and business initiatives have improved the livelihoods of thousands of Afghan women, including in Helmand. Our support to the Ministry of Interior is placing more emphasis on women’s rights in the workplace, and supports the development of the Afghan National Police’s policy on promoting human rights and protecting women.

7. In addition, we incorporate gender issues into our national-level programming in the justice and prison sectors, for instance funding training to female defence lawyers on issues that disproportionately affect female clients, such as family law.

8. On Sri Lanka you asked what objections the UK raised about the Commonwealth’s decision that Sri Lanka would host the 2013 CHOGM, who raised them and how they were raised. The decision for Sri Lanka to host the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) was taken at Port of Spain in 2009. The 2009 Port of Spain Communiqué stated that Commonwealth Heads of Government accepted Sri Lanka’s offer to host CHOGM in 2013. Heads reaffirmed that decision at the 2011 CHOGM in Perth. The Communiqué is the only record of decisions made at the CHOGM retreat—there is no other record of business. At Perth in 2011, the Prime Minister made clear our concerns directly with the Sri Lankan President. As the Prime Minister was quoted as saying in October 2011,1 “we want [Sri Lanka] to do more in terms of reconciliation after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. I’ve had that conversation myself with President Rajapaksa who’s here. And I think that you know they should be aware of the fact that they’re holding this Commonwealth Summit in 2013 and it’s up to them to show further progress, so they can welcome the maximum number of countries when they do”. The spotlight will be on Sri Lanka during CHOGM and we will lose no opportunity to highlight to Sri Lanka the need for effective commitment to the shared values and human rights for which the Commonwealth stands.

9. On Burma, you asked if the President’s committee to review political prisoner cases had been set up. The Burmese government has taken initial steps on its commitment, made during the visit of President Obama in November 2012, to review the remaining political prisoner cases. The committee formed to start this process had its first meeting on 23 February and it is encouraging that it includes a strong range of independent voices from civil society organisations. This builds on the earlier promising step of granting access to prisoners and prisons by the International Committee for the Red Cross. However, it will be important to ensure that the committee feeds into a mechanism which impartially reviews all remaining cases, that it is independent of government, and operates in a transparent manner. We continue to press the Burmese Government on these points.

10. We also strongly welcome the President’s commitment, during his recent visit to the UK in July, to release all political prisoners by the end of 2013. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners Burma (AAPPB) (a NGO focused on political prisoner cases), since Burma’s reforms began in 2011, President Thein Sein’s government has released 29,449 prisoners, of whom 859 were political prisoners. The releases have taken place under nine separate amnesties, most recently when 23 political prisoners were freed on 17 May. There is no agreed figure for how many political prisoners remain in jail. Several credible local organisations, including the 88 Generation and the AAPPB estimate that around 160 political prisoners now remain in detention. Most of the amnesties over the last two years have been carried out under ‘Act 401’. As such, they have mostly been conditional releases, with a provision that if an individual is convicted of a new offence, that individual can be instructed to serve the remainder of his/her original sentence. In response to our expressions of concern on this issue, President Thein Sein made a statement on 4 June in which he committed to ensure the unconditional release of all political prisoners. During his recent visit to the UK, he announced that all detainees found to be political prisoners would be released by the end of this year.

11. You also asked for our view on recommendations in the Rakhine Investigation Commission report and on an international investigation into allegations of violations targeting the Muslim community. We are extremely concerned by allegations of human rights violations in Rakhine State. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about the continuing plight of the Rohingya community with President Thein Sein during his recent visit to London on 15–16 July. We welcomed the President’s announcement that the Nasaka security force, accused of widespread human rights violations, will be abolished.

12. We have consistently made clear to the Burmese government that where serious crimes have been committed, including in Rakhine, those who have perpetrated them must be held accountable for their actions. The Rakhine Investigative Commission, set up to investigate the causes of last year’s violence, emphasised the importance of ensuring accountability, and President Thein Sein has endorsed this.

13. This accountability needs to be delivered through a clear and transparent investigative and prosecutorial process that meets international standards. Further independent investigative work to establish fully the facts would be required for an informed assessment as to whether ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed in Rakhine. We believe that a national process would be more effective in furthering accountability than a UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry into the situation in Rakhine State. The UN has mandated a Special Rapporteur, Tomás Quintana, to monitor and report on human rights issues in Burma, and this should be the primary mechanism for UN engagement on these issues. We will continue to lobby the Burmese government to allow the opening of a country office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, with a strong mandate which allows them to monitor the human rights situation in all parts of the country.

14. On Russia, you asked for details on what was discussed at the most recent UK/Russia Human Rights dialogue. The following issues were raised during the 8 May UK/Russia human rights dialogue: the need for NGOs to be able to operate freely, with specific reference to the pressure on the NGO Golos, as a result of the “Foreign Agent” law; the treatment of the 6 May Bolotnaya protesters and the band ‘Pussy Riot’; the treatment of the opposition and the cases against Navalny; LGBT rights and the proposed laws against LGBT people; the need for a thorough and transparent investigation into the deaths of Sergei Magnitsky’s and Natalya Estemirova; the release of Mikhail Khodorkovsky; reported concerns about human rights abuses associated with preparations for the Sochi Winter Olympics; and disabled people’s rights. As I said during the evidence session, the Government has significant concerns about the pressure being placed on NGOs across Russia. The Minister for Europe, David Lidington released a statement in March highlighting these concerns, urging the Russian government not to place groups advocating the protection of fundamental freedoms under special scrutiny.

15. You also asked what involvement we have had on Russia/Schengen visa arrangements, focusing on what human rights arguments, if any, we had made to other EU Member States. The UK is not part of Schengen, but we view this in terms of the wider EU-Russia relationship. We do not play an active part in formal negotiations, but we do discuss the importance of the visa relationship with Russia with other EU member states, and consider its implications for the UK. During these discussions we frequently highlight with member states where the EU should focus its efforts, including a firm approach on human rights. When the EU’s relations with Russia were discussed at the European Council in March, the Prime Minister and other leaders agreed the importance of the EU maintaining a unified approach with one of its key strategic partners.

16. On Colombia, there was a suggestion from ABColombia that certain Colombian NGOs were not seeking funding from the British Embassy in Bogota because they were not prepared to work alongside the Colombian government. We operate an open bidding process, to ensure the full spectrum of Colombia’s civil society can apply and this ensures we receive a diverse range of ideas for projects. Funding is allocated to high quality bids that match our bidding criteria, and in no case have we specified that we will only accept bids from organisations working with the Colombian Government. In our experience projects that can leverage host government support or engagement are more likely to achieve change, but we continue to support work that challenges host country views, and we do not believe that change is impossible without host government support. Overall, we are supportive but not uncritical of President Santos and his Government.

17. I committed to write on the issue of returns to Sri Lanka, following the recent judgement of the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. I have consulted the relevant team in the Home Office, and hope the update below is useful.

18. The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in the country guidance case of GJ and Others, considered a wide range evidence, including the allegations that returnees from the UK and other countries have faced torture. They concluded that not all Sri Lankans, including Tamils in general, are at risk on return to Sri Lanka.

19. GJ and Others replaces all previous Sri Lanka country case law and provides updated guidance on the “at risk categories” for return to Sri Lanka. This new law is being reflected in an updated Operational Guidance Note, which we aim to publish by the end of July.

20. Caseworkers are also being instructed that all new and existing applications for international protection from Sri Lanka nationals must be assessed in line with the new risk categories identified by the Tribunal. The Home Office monitors the situation in asylum-producing countries, using a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable governmental (including the FCO), media, and non-governmental and human rights sources, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Detailed guidance is provided to caseworkers on determining claims from Sri Lankan asylum applicants and this is published on the Home Office website. In addition, decision makers have access to an information request service, which provides rapid responses to specific country-based enquiries. This service ensures that those involved in the decision making process have the most up to date information available to them. In line with UNHCR guidelines caseworkers carefully assess the protection needs of each claim on its individual merits against this background of published country information and operational guidance.

21. May I take this opportunity to thank you and the Committee once again for the valuable role you play in scrutinising the FCO’s Annual Report on Human Rights, and the our wider work in this area.

July 2013