---

Human Rights Annual Report 2005

Indeed, and coming from the right hon. Gentleman, that says a great deal. He is a strong supporter of the NHS, as I am. I suspect that if and when we reach his level of seniority—I shall use that term carefully—we would be pleased to be doing as well as him. There is a problem with the Minister responsible for trade also being the Minister responsible for human rights. The question is not simply whether there is a trade-off. I have every confidence in the personal integrity of the Minister in not allowing that. It is also a question of the perception. In foreign affairs and diplomacy, it is often the perception that may undermine some of the good work done. The Foreign Affairs Committee report has made a fair point in that respect. The Minister should not see it as a personal criticism, and the Government should not see it as a policy criticism in respect of the actual record. That is a moot point, but even in terms of the perception, there is something to be said. I have enjoyed listening to the debate; indeed, it has been a privilege to hear it. We heard a highly informed and detailed contribution from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who spoke first on Zimbabwe. I think he accepted that the point that I raised in an intervention. Given the appalling human rights situation in that country, the treatment of returning asylum seekers by the Mugabe regime and the unpredictability of that regime, it is hard to see how our Government can see people as potentially removable to that location even if they fail in their asylum application here. There may not be any or many returns at the moment, but the fact that the Government have fought so hard to deprive people in that situation of a meaningful existence in this country in the interim suggests that they are of the view that the situation in Zimbabwe may change at any minute. I do not believe that there is enough evidence of progress on the ground to suggest that. It is unreasonable—indeed, outrageous—that people are left with no means in this country when they are clearly not removable and that the Government have exerted every legal muscle that they can to defend their position. Hon. Members should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that case and for the way in which he set out the situation on Iraq. I do not have time now to go into the human rights situation in Iraq, but I endorse everything that he said about how bleak the situation is and how we must look at the human rights situation and, indeed, life expectancy when judging not only what damage has been done by our policy, but how best to move on from that. That will not be an easy judgment call, whatever our views on the way forward. I also share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on Afghanistan, which is a separate case from Iraq. Just because we are working with the United States in Afghanistan, that does not mean that the criticisms that are often made of US Administration policy in Iraq automatically flow to Afghanistan. They do not, although there are some concerns. It was enjoyable to hear the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), my neighbour from Oxford, give a learned discourse on the human rights problems in China in particular. He referred to letters from his constituents. The people of Oxford are pretty liberal in writing to people, and I am sure that I have seen some of the letters to which he has responded so expertly today. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) gave a typically passionate speech on the plight of migrants worldwide. We also see that passion in his views on UK policy in that regard. We are not debating that subject today, but it is a real problem. We must have, as the UN must, metrics and measurements for the welfare of people that include the huge problems faced by migrants in the world, whether they are voluntary migrants or forced migrants, as they are in many cases owing not just to famine but to war and repression. There is a major problem in that regard. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on Guantanamo Bay. Again, now is not the time to go into detail, but as a medical doctor I want to take the opportunity, in advance of a discussion at the British Medical Association’s annual representative meeting in a couple of weeks, to point out the concerns raised by UN special rapporteurs about the role of physicians in Guantanamo Bay. The situation is quite clear, and I quote from their report:"““The Declarations of Tokyo and Malta prohibit doctors from participating in force-feeding a detainee, provided the detainee is capable of understanding the consequences of refusing food””—" and, indeed, so long as the hunger strike is voluntary rather than under coercion from other people. The report goes on to state:"““This position in informed by the fundamental principle, which recurs throughout human rights law, of individual autonomy.””" Paragraph 81 continues:"““According to the United States Government, Department of Defence policy allows health professionals to force feed a detainee in Guantanamo Bay when the hunger strike threatens his life or health.””" The rapporteurs say—and I agree—that that policy"““is inconsistent with the principle of individual autonomy, the policy of the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association, as well as the position of””—" this also applies to the International Committee of the Red Cross—"““doctors…some domestic courts, and many others.””" There is a fundamental difference. On the one hand, most of the world—the US is on the other hand, as it were—has a fundamental human rights provision about the autonomy of patients. It is bad enough for that right to be ignored in a prison, but for doctors to be actively involved gives an air of legitimacy—the torturer with the white coat. I hope that the Minister will tell us what representations are being made about that particularly nasty aspect of what has gone on in Guantanamo Bay. It is timely that this debate comes after the suicides in Guantanamo Bay. When one reads the UN report and other first-hand reports of what happens, the only surprise one has is that there have not been more acts of self-harm and suicide. For the US to act in the way that it has and to call those suicides an act of war, purely politically inspired, is extremely depressing. It is important for the UK Government to set an example, considering the human rights work they do. It is worth putting on the record once again the fact that the debate is a consequence of the Government’s decision in 1998 to issue a human rights report. That had not happened before and it gives us something to debate—the Government might see it as ammunition. I have raised the question of potential returnees to Zimbabwe. It is difficult to see how we can maintain as much credibility as we do if we are not consistent. Another such example relates to our position on certain matters criticised in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to comments made about Pakistan in particular—I am afraid that I am going to talk about religion and follow it up by talking about sex—and the cases that we read about in which the Pakistani Government prosecute, on pain of death, people who blaspheme. That is outrageous, and I think the UK Government have made representations about it. At the same time, the law of blasphemy in this land has not been repealed; the fact that it is not used but is simply a threat is a problem. The Government would have greater credibility on the fundamental issues of free speech if they took the opportunity to deal with the matter. Foreign Office Ministers should make the point to Home Office Ministers that we should not have laws on the statute book that we seek to have removed in other places. We have heard some mention of human rights in respect of gender. Page 214 of the FCO’s report shows well how the UK can set an example, through the issue of sexual orientation. It states how this Government, before preaching to other countries, have set out a series of protections in UK law and human rights law to provide employment protection for lesbian and gay people. Indeed, mention is made of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and so on. That emphasises the question of why the Government have not done something similar for freedom of speech provisions, given the reference to blasphemy in Pakistan on page 216. I want to draw attention to one more example: the attack made in this country on the Human Rights Act 1998. The FCO’s report draws attention to the Human Rights Act in at least two places: on page 194 in respect of torture, which is crucial given the recent debates, and in the annexe on the Council of Europe and other bodies on page 280, where we rightly boast of the fact that we have introduced international human rights law into domestic law through the European convention on human rights. However, the arrangements are under sustained attack by other parts of the Government at the same time as the Foreign Office draws attention to our satisfactory position on human rights law. I do not have time to go into the subject and neither is this the place to do so, but I may say that it is not clear in any of the cases mentioned by the Government, whether they relate to the Afghani hijackers or the deportation of foreign prisoners, that there is any evidence that the Human Rights Act or the ECHR has had any impact on the UK Government’s ability to give the safety of UK citizens the priority it requires. We have not seen that at all. At a time when the Government rightly talk about their record on human rights through the Human Rights Act, it is depressing to see the same Government attack human rights. I welcome the Committee’s report almost in its entirety, but although I appreciate that the Committee cannot go through every topic and every country, it was disappointing to see little mention made of the crucial issue of trafficking of humans for sexual exploitation and labour in this country. The Government’s report appropriately mentions that at the time it was written in July 2005, the Council of Europe—a body in which you, Mr. Hancock, have played a fine role in the Parliamentary Assembly—had negotiated the drafting of a convention. We still have not signed, far less ratified, that convention, and as I understand it, that is a matter for the Foreign Office in consultation with other parts of Government. Can the Minister update us on whether we are in a position to sign and ratify that convention? As we know from recent news stories, the problem is serious and could be getting worse. On the subject of the Human Rights Council of the UN, it is vital that the UN machinery on human rights works and is made to work. I wish it full steam ahead and hope that the Government will do all they can to strengthen its role.