Conclusions and recommendations
The FCO's 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report
1. We congratulate the FCO's Human Rights Department on the considerable effort which has gone into the 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report. We strongly welcome the FCO's decision to continue publication of the report in printed form.
(Paragraph 6)
2. We believe that
the value of the FCO's annual report on human rights and democracy
would be enhanced considerably if it were to provide some form
of assessment of the FCO's work. We recommend that the FCO, in
next year's report, experiment with accountability measures for
some of its human rights programmes, for instance by setting benchmarks,
targets and indicators. (Paragraph 7)
3. We support the
approach being taken by the Government in negotiations on EU accession
to the European Convention on Human Rights. (Paragraph 13)
Women's human rights
4. We ask the FCO to indicate
what steps it is taking to safeguard the rights of women and girls
in Afghanistan from 2014.
(Paragraph 16)
5. We request that
the FCO inform the Committee what steps it is taking to encourage
the Iraqi government to ban female genital mutilation across Iraq
and to have this practice banned world-wide. (Paragraph 17)
6. We ask the FCO to indicate what steps it is taking to safeguard the rights of women and girls in Pakistan and world-wide.
(Paragraph 18)
7. We commend the
Government for signing the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, although
we are concerned that the delay in signature—and the failure
to explain publicly the reasons for the delay—may have damaged
perceptions of the UK's commitment to women's human rights. (Paragraph
20)
Children's human rights
8. We
recommend that the FCO undertake urgent work to address negative
perceptions among voluntary sector groups of its commitment to
children's human rights abroad. (Paragraph 23)
FCO policy development and staffing
9. We recommend that the Secretary of State's Advisory Group adopt a more consultative format for its meetings and that specific draft policy proposals be put regularly to the Group for comment and advice.
(Paragraph 27)
10. We request that
the FCO inform us what training on human rights and on relevant
strategy documents is provided for FCO staff during their careers,
how the FCO's human rights objectives are reflected in staff job
descriptions, and how individual performance in pursuit of those
objectives is evaluated.
(Paragraph 31)
Countries of concern
11. We recommend that, despite the difficulties inherent in the concept, the FCO should continue to designate "countries of concern". (Paragraph
42)
12. We believe that Bahrain should have been designated as a country of concern in the FCO's 2011 report on human rights and democracy. (Paragraph
43)
13. It is inevitable
that the UK will have interests which have the potential to conflict
with its human rights values: these interests might, for instance,
be strategic, commercial or security-related. In pursuing these
alongside its human rights work overseas, the UK runs the risk
of operating double standards, and our view is that it would be
in the Government's interest for it to be more transparent in
this respect and for Ministers to be bolder in acknowledging that
there will be contradictions. Rather than trying to assert that
the two can co-exist freely, part of the Government's role should
be publicly to set out and explain its judgments on how far to
balance them in particular cases, having taken into account the
need to adapt policy according to local circumstances and developments.
(Paragraph 45)
14. We recommend that
the FCO revise its criteria for designating "countries of
concern". Decisions on designation, if they are to have maximum
credibility, should be based purely upon assessments of human
rights standards and should stand up to objective comparison.
External factors, such as strategic considerations or the UK's
ability to influence developments, should not be allowed to colour
those decisions, although they might usefully guide decisions
on where to concentrate funding for human rights programmes. If,
despite our recommendations, the FCO chooses to continue to use
existing criteria, we recommend that the Department uses more
flexibility in allocating funds from human rights programme budgets
to countries which are not "countries of concern" and
where human rights failings are less severe, but where the chances
of a lasting beneficial impact are reasonably high. (Paragraph
46)
Torture
15. We strongly welcome the publication by the FCO of the Strategy for the Prevention of Torture 2011-15. We believe that there is merit in keeping a tight focus to the Strategy, and we do not support suggestions that its scope should be widened to cover policy on reparations for victims of torture, as this needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
(Paragraph 52)
16. We find it unsatisfactory that the Government has not been more forthcoming to Parliament about its efforts—in general and in specific cases—to assess the level of risk to the safety of those who are removed from the UK.
(Paragraph 56)
17. We welcome the new channel of communication established between FCO officials, non-governmental organisations and the UK Border Agency to discuss the assessment of risk to those who are removed from the UK. We encourage the FCO to be energetic in evaluating reports by non-governmental organisations and media sources of torture of deportees from the UK, including in Sri Lanka, and in spelling out the risk to the UK Border Agency. We also request that the Government clarify the division between the roles of the FCO and of the UK Border Agency's Country of Origin Information Service in gathering the intelligence needed to make accurate assessments of the risk to deportees upon their return to their country of origin.
(Paragraph 58)
18. We conclude that arrangements for deportation with assurances would command greater confidence if both parties to the agreement were to have signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) which would signify that the states concerned permitted regular independent monitoring of places and conditions of detention. We also recommend that the Government should inform Parliament of the names of the individuals or bodies responsible for monitoring the conditions under which those deported are being held, and the arrangements made for follow-up monitoring.
(Paragraph 64)
19. We acknowledge
the efforts made by the Government to keep Parliament informed
of new arrangements for deportation with assurances. However,
these are matters of such significance within Parliament that
we believe that a greater degree of accountability is warranted.
We recommend that texts of memoranda of understanding between
the UK and foreign states relating to arrangements for deportation
with assurances should be laid before Parliament. We further recommend
that such memoranda of understanding should not come into force
before 14 sitting days have elapsed, during which time Members
may signify any objection. (Paragraph 66)
20. We welcome the forthcoming independent review of deportation with assurances (DWA) arrangements announced in the FCO's 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report. We request that the Government indicate what exactly will be reviewed, by whom, and to whom the results of the review will be made available.
(Paragraph 67)
21. The long drawn-out nature of police investigations into cases of alleged rendition has had an unacceptable impact on the work of the Detainee Inquiry and of this Committee and others. We request that the Government explain to us why the investigations by the Metropolitan Police into claims made by Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi are expected to take so long to conclude.
(Paragraph 73)
22. We recommend that the Government and human rights organisations should start to explore ways of finding a mutually acceptable basis on which the successor inquiry to the Detainee Inquiry can proceed. However, while we value transparency in principle, we question whether total transparency could be applied to all proceedings of the successor inquiry without hindering, rather than assisting, the inquiry team in getting to the truth of the matter.
(Paragraph 74)
23. We make no comment at this
stage on developments in allegations of UK complicity in rendition.
We reiterate, however, that we would be deeply disturbed if assurances
given by Ministers over many years to this Committee's predecessors
that the UK had not been involved in rendition were shown to be
inaccurate. We expect to return to this issue. (Paragraph 75)
Applying public pressure
24. We
are satisfied that enough progress towards reform has been made
in Burma to justify some relaxation of the EU's sanctions regime,
although we are in no doubt that Burma's human rights record remains
seriously blemished. We believe that the UK can and should build
on the current climate of goodwill to press for wider reform,
including access to those still held in detention as political
prisoners or for political offences or for politically-motivated
reasons. We recommend that the UK urge the Burmese authorities
to permit independent observers to visit Rakhine State, to gather
objective evidence on the extent to which the rights of the Rohingya
minority are being respected. (Paragraph 85)
25. We find it difficult to
discern any consistency of logic behind the Government's policy
in not taking a public stance on the Bahrain Grand Prix but implementing
at least a partial boycott of the 2012 UEFA European Football
Championship matches played in Ukraine. (Paragraph 91)
26. We ask the Department
to confirm that the presumption against the granting of visas
to enter the UK on human rights grounds would only apply to people
against whom there was evidence that they had abused human rights.
(Paragraph 92)
27. We conclude that publicising the names of those who are denied visas to enter the UK on human rights grounds could be a valuable tool, when used sparingly, in drawing attention to the UK's determination to uphold high standards of human rights, and we recommend that the Government make use of it.
(Paragraph 96)
Business and human rights
28. We welcome the FCO's intention to develop a Business and Human Rights Strategy, which may give some unity of form to the various initiatives and resources already in place to promote responsible business practice. However, it appears that the Strategy will be couched exclusively in terms of guidance and voluntary initiatives. While these are undoubtedly worthwhile, we believe that they do not on their own meet the spirit of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which envisage that states will take "appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication".
(Paragraph 109)
29. We recommend that
the Government should not dismiss out of hand the extension of
extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover actions overseas by businesses
based in the UK, or by firms operating under contract to the UK
Government, which have an impact on human rights. Relying on local
administration of justice may not be enough to preserve the international
reputation of the UK for upholding high standards of human rights.
(Paragraph 110)
30. We recommend that the Government should consider linking provision of Government procurement opportunities, investment support and export credit guarantees to UK businesses' human rights records overseas.
(Paragraph 111)
31. We accept the FCO's assurances that its human rights department is consulted on all arms export decisions. We are surprised, however, that the FCO Minister responsible for human rights appears not to have been consulted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the list of priority markets for forthcoming arms exports, and that the overlap between priority market countries and "countries of concern" was not brought to his attention. We believe that it should have been, and we recommend that BIS and FCO officials take steps to prevent such lapses in the sharing of information on arms exports between ministers, and explain how this will be done.
(Paragraph 115)
32. We recommend that
the Government, in its response to this Report, 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. (Paragraph 117)
Conclusion
33. The UK has a strong record in upholding human rights across the world, and the FCO's 2011 Report on Human Rights and Democracy provides ample evidence of its work in promoting higher standards of human rights abroad, sometimes under difficult circumstances. That work is widely recognised within the sector, and we applaud it. We hope that the constructive criticism in this Report will enable the FCO and indeed the Government, collectively, to improve upon that performance.
(Paragraph 118)
| 
