UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 574-ii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Human Rights ANNUAL Report 2005

Wednesday 23 November 2005

IAN PEARSON, MP and MS ALEXANDRA HALL HALL

Evidence heard in Public Questions 70 - 179

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 23 November 2005

Members present

Mike Gapes, in the Chair

Mr John Horam

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Paul Keetch

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanley

Ms Gisela Stuart

________________

Witnesses: Ian Pearson, a Member of the House, Minister of State for Trade, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and Ms Alexandra Hall Hall, Head, Human Rights, Democracy and Governance Group, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon, everybody. Can I welcome the Minister, Ian Pearson, and Ms Hall Hall to our session on Human Rights. I think, if you do not mind, we would like to start with a first question from Sir John Stanley which relates to your role as Minister.

Q70 Sir John Stanley: Minister, you are in a unique position: in the official list of Her Majesty's Government, as published by Hansard, you have two identical entries as a Minister for Trade under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as the Minister for Trade for the DTI. You are also the Human Rights Minister as far as the Foreign Office is concerned. Can I ask you, are we right in thinking this is the first time ever in which there is a dual-hatted Minister responsible both for trade and human rights?

Ian Pearson: To the best of my knowledge that is absolutely true. We have had a Minister that has one foot in the DTI and one foot in the Foreign Office for a number of years but I think this is the first time that the role of the Human Rights Minister and Trade Minister have been combined.

Q71 Sir John Stanley: Is it your understanding that when you were appointed by the Prime Minister this was for the duration and was not confined to simply the length of the UK Presidency of the EU?

Ian Pearson: Well, we all serve and are at the disposal of the Prime Minister. I do not think anybody can predict how long we last in these matters, but I think I was appointed a Minister on the same basis as every other Minister.

Q72 Sir John Stanley: I appreciate it is difficult for you to agree this because you have been landed with this particular job, but is it not the case that there is an inherent contradiction in the particular dual responsibilities which you have been asked to undertake, given that there are many countries around the world where there is a real tension between prosecuting the UK commercial and trade interest and standing up for human rights? If one took a country, for example, like Burma where there are many people and many Members of Parliament in all parts of the House who believe that there is, on human rights grounds, a very, very strong case for economic sanctions and trade reductions as far as Burma is concerned, how can you be seriously taken, if I might say so, as far as the outside is concerned, as somebody who can be both serious on human rights and serious on trade, given the contradictions in countries like Burma, China, Zimbabwe and others?

Ian Pearson: No, I do not agree with you that there is a contradiction. I think that it is pretty much common practice that UK Ministers have raised human rights issues but raised a lot of other issues as well with their interlocutors in other governments. That is certainly common practice as far as the Foreign Office is concerned. Certainly Jack Straw does not have any problem raising the issue of human rights and then raising a whole range of other foreign policy issues; the Prime Minister does not have any problem with raising the issue of human rights with the Chinese and than talking to them about a whole range of other issues. I certainly do not have any problems in raising the issue of human rights at appropriate opportunities and then also raising trade matters as well. Burma is not, perhaps, the best example to choose because we have a deliberate policy with regard to Burma of not encouraging trade and so I certainly would not be either visiting Burma or talking to anybody about investing in Burma.

Q73 Sir John Stanley: I am sure you do not have any difficulty in raising human rights issues, but the point I would like to put to you is, given the fact that you are titled Minister of Trade and that you have a clear duty and responsibility to prosecute Britain's trading interest in the world at large and, indeed, inside the House of Commons, is that really the best title to have when you are meant to be taking full responsibility for prosecuting the Government's human rights agenda within the Foreign Office?

Ian Pearson: We can get into issues about job titles. I think the key thing here is the UK Government's stance on human rights, which is a very strong one and goes right across government. So the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office team, raise human rights issues. You will find that Douglas Alexander, Kim Howells and David Triesman will raise human rights issues in their capacity as Foreign Office Ministers with the countries that they have direct responsibilities with. I also raise human rights issues with the countries where I have specific country responsibility in my Foreign Office remit. I do not see any difficulty in actually doing that because it is important that we raise human rights issues, but there are established ways of doing these things. So I do not see the problem that you are suggesting really exists.

Q74 Mr Purchase: Could I follow the same trail for a moment or two? Our experience of the human rights issues and trade is that you mix the two at your peril. There are a number of instances in recent past history which guide us in that direction. Would it not be better if the role of human rights overseer, if you like, was vested in DFID where there at least is a firewall between trade interests and humanitarian interests and development interests? That was established for that very purpose - to ensure that there was not too much of a mixture going on either in the Foreign Office or in the DTI. Would you give us a view on whether or not it would be better located in an overview type of role with DFID rather than the Foreign Office and the DTI?

Ian Pearson: Well, yes, I can give you a view, and my strong view is that this should be an FCO lead; it is only the Foreign Office that really has that whole breadth of reach and can cover all human rights issues. I think there would be a real risk of marginalising human rights if it was seen to be part of the remit of the Department for International Development. So I would argue it is in the right place at the moment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Q75 Chairman: We are now going to move to a number of other areas. Can I begin by asking you about the progress towards establishing the UN Human Rights Council? How are developments there going? Could you clarify the position of the Government at this stage? I understand although it has been agreed to establish such a body there are lots of difficulties, and if you could, perhaps, give us an update that would be very helpful.

Ian Pearson: I can certainly do that. As a Government we very much welcome the decision to create the Human Rights Council that was taken at the UN summit in September. I think this is a real success story as far as the UK concerned. The UK, as the EU Presidency, has taken a leading role in developing the EU's position, including drafting and co-ordinating all the EU statements and position papers on the Council. We have worked very closely with regional partners, such as Canada, Switzerland, Japan and Mexico, to build up a regional consensus. The UK, on behalf of the EU as well, is co-ordinating a worldwide lobbying campaign with our EU partners to build support for a Council which represents a genuine improvement on the current one. You have hinted that things might not be straightforward. Let me just say to you that we are working towards a Council that will be more effective, including through it becoming a standing body. We have just finished consultations and we are now just about to enter a process of negotiation in terms of the exact remit of the Human Rights Council.

Q76 Chairman: When you say "standing body" do you mean it would sit permanently?

Ian Pearson: Yes, that is very much what we want to see. We want to see it as a standing body that sits permanently so it can address urgent situations in real time. That has been one of the problems with the current system. Having to wait and get a meeting to take place is not, in our view, satisfactory. Certainly we also want it be a standing body that provides good access to non-governmental organisations because NGOs and, indeed, the information that comes from the press, are very important in human rights and will be important with the work of the new Human Rights Council.

Q77 Chairman: When can we expect it to be established?

Ian Pearson: We would like to see negotiations concluded by the end of this calendar year, but we cannot guarantee that, obviously. There are a lot of countries involved and I think it is fair to say that countries like Cuba and Venezuela have not been particularly supportive when it comes to these sorts of issues. So there is a lot of negotiation still to go on. We would certainly want to see the Human Rights Council up and running next year.

Q78 Chairman: Can it be established without a consensus?

Ian Pearson: My understanding is it can be established from a majority vote, but we would want to seek consensus.

Q79 Chairman: You would still seek consensus but if this drags on and you have no consensus what is going to be done to resolve it?

Ian Pearson: If it does drag on and we cannot get unanimity then we would want to seek a vote, as we do think there has to be an endpoint and we do want to see a new, more effective Human Rights Council brought into existence at an early opportunity.

Q80 Chairman: Can I turn to some questions about the International Criminal Court? We, as a country, have played a very important role in its establishment and, clearly, there is great interest in what is going to happen since the reference of the events in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, which was very important. However, the United States, as you are aware, has been very deficient (?) on this and although it abstained on the reference of Sudan to the International Criminal Court they have not changed their fundamental opposition and they have also been trying to undermine the Court in different ways. Can you reassure me that our Government is not going to give in to attempts to undermine the credibility of the International Criminal Court?

Ian Pearson: I can assure you that the UK Government remains fully committed to the International Criminal Court. You are right to point out that the United States has had reservations about the ICC. I think the particular problem it has is that it believes that the ICC could lead to politically motivated prosecutions, which it clearly does not want to see. We would not want to see that either and we are confident that the ICC Statute has sufficient safeguards to prevent this, and it is a point of disagreement between us and the Americans on this. We hope that over time the Court will be able to demonstrate to the US that its fears are ungrounded, and we continue to talk to the US about the ICC and stress very strongly our point of view. You rightly mentioned the situation about the resolution on Darfur, and I think it was encouraging that the US did not actually block the UN Security Council Resolution but allowed it to proceed. I think that is a hopeful sign which we will want to build on.

Q81 Chairman: What is your attitude to the US attempts to get non-surrender agreements? In fact, I understand they have got nearly 100 with countries around the world. Are we likely to sign one? Do we oppose and criticise them for doing this?

Ian Pearson: Our view as a Government is that we believe that non-surrender agreements are permissible under the ICC Statute providing they are consistent with states/parties' obligations under the Statute. I do not think I have got anything particularly more to add.

Q82 Chairman: But we are not signing one?

Ian Pearson: We have not signed one to date.

Q83 Chairman: Have you got any plans to do so?

Ian Pearson: Well, the US has not presented us with a draft, so the situation does not arise at the moment.

Q84 Chairman: Are we expecting one?

Ian Pearson: I am not aware whether the Americans are intending to encourage us to go down that route. They certainly know our strong views on the ICC.

Q85 Chairman: If they did present us with one what would we do with it?

Ian Pearson: We would give it careful consideration, as I am sure you would expect us to.

Q86 Chairman: And then reject it, I hope. Can we then move on to the actual financial support that we are giving? What support are we giving to the International Criminal Court?

Ian Pearson: We have a budget contribution of £5.9 million to the ICC in 2005. We have also concluded agreements on information sharing and on witness relocation with the Court and we are negotiating an agreement on sentence enforcement. So I think it shows the extent of the UK's commitment to the International Criminal Court: the fact that we are very strongly supportive and wanting to work closely with it.

Q87 Mr Purchase: It has seemed to me that since we were the authors, basically, of the ICC, we pushed very hard in Labour's first term but there has been scarcely any support from the British Government in dealing with the intransigence of the USA. Can you explain why we have suddenly lost - not suddenly but over the last few years - enthusiasm for the ICC?

Ian Pearson: I am afraid I cannot agree with you in the sense that we still very strongly believe in the ICC. We think it is a unique tool in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes and we continue to have a dialogue with the United States about this. Let me just add to what I said about the American fears about the fact there might be politically motivated prosecutions: we need, I think, to continue to argue, and we are continuing to argue, with the US over this; we do not see the ICC, as I say, as a concern in this regard. We think there are sufficient safeguards in the Statute and we will continue to make those points to the US.

Q88 Mr Purchase: The very reason we have started down this route was very much connected to the behaviour of American troops in the Far East, particularly Vietnam. That was why we did it. Of course, the Americans were fearful of such an organisation getting anywhere because it is likely, given that they have a presence in so many countries where conflict is ongoing around the world, that they will be the people likely to be caught under such a protocol. We do not appear to be pressing them as we should. Can you give us some comfort that this pressure will resume at a really high level?

Ian Pearson: What I can say to you is that I do not believe that we have not been continuing to talk to the Americans about this because the simple matter of it is that we have. We certainly hope that the US will make a decision in the future to sign up to the International Criminal Court. I think you have to remember that it is still relatively early days in terms of the establishment of the Court.

Q89 Andrew Mackinlay: And fragile, as a result.

Ian Pearson: You say "fragile, as a result", Mr Mackinlay. Any new organisation is bound to take some time to find its feet. I am very pleased it has issued its first ever arrest warrant on 13 October this year in respect of members of the Lord's Resistance Army, as the Committee will be familiar with, in Northern Uganda. That indicates that the ICC is starting to have an impact and obviously we will give it, as a Government, all the support that we can in terms of its future development. We hope that when it has established more of a track record the concerns of the United States will be shown to be unfounded and that they will think again about their decision with regard to supporting it.

Q90 Chairman: Can I take you back to your previous answer to me when I asked you about whether the US had presented a proposal for us to sign a non-surrender agreement? I think a previous Minister in your department, Mr Rammell, came before this Committee in the last Parliament and gave evidence where he said that a proposal had been made and it had been rejected. Is that correct?

Ian Pearson: We were approached by the US in 2002 to sign an agreement but we told them that the draft at that time, which would have exempted all US citizens from the International Criminal Court, was not compatible with our obligations under the ICC, and we have had no contact with them about a further draft since then, to the best of my knowledge.

Q91 Chairman: So you think it is possible they might come back with another draft at some point?

Ian Pearson: That would be speculation. I just do not know.

Q92 Chairman: We hope you will consult with us before you respond to it. Can we move on to one question quickly about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia? The European Union in October decided to open the accession process for Croatia's membership, but that came after a rather sudden change of position by the prosecutor between one week and the next, and as a result of the view that Croatia's Government was complying with requests to get Mr Gotovina to the Hague the EU have said that Croatia could open the accession negotiations. What are you doing to ensure that Croatia fulfils its obligations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

Ian Pearson: Gotovina, Mladic and Karadzic are still fugitives and they must stand trial for the crimes of which they are accused, and the co-operation of the Balkan States, not just Croatia but Serbia as well, is essential in this. We have made it very plain to Croatia and to Serbia that they must co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal to the former Yugoslavia and we have stressed to them that their Euro-Atlantic integration - ie, their membership of the European Union and of NATO - would depend on it. Certainly from the UK's view we do everything we can to encourage them to co-operate with the Tribunal.

Q93 Chairman: Croatia has got this opening of negotiations without handing over this man, just on a promise to do so. Do you think this might lead to certain other countries in the Balkans interpreting that as meaning they do not really need to co-operate and they will still get the accession to the EU at some point?

Ian Pearson: They would be absolutely wrong to interpret it in that way. Negotiations with Croatia, I am pleased to say, have begun, and I think it is right that they should do so, but Croatia and other Balkan states should be under no illusions that to secure membership of the European Union they will have to do all they can to fulfil their human rights obligations, and that includes co-operating fully with the International Tribunal.

Q94 Mr Pope: Why have we not publicly criticised the human rights abuses that have taken place at Guantanamo Bay?

Ian Pearson: I do think that we have publicised our views when it comes to Guantanamo, and I think that if you read some of the comments in the press, particularly at the time, the UK was vociferous in its view, and we made clear to the US authorities on many occasions and at every level that we regard the circumstances under which detainees are held in Guantanamo as unacceptable, and the US Government knows our view on this.

Q95 Mr Pope: In part, the war on terror is a war for human rights. We are establishing elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, but how can we do this while, at the same, denying the human rights of people held at Guantanamo?

Ian Pearson: I agree with you very much that the war on terror is a war for human rights, for protecting the rights of our citizens and other citizens across the globe. I have to say very clearly that the Americans are very aware of our views on Guantanamo and the circumstances under which the detainees are continuing to be held there. We do not regard that as being right and we continue to discuss this with the US.

Q96 Mr Pope: Do you have any information about American "black sites" and have you raised this issue with the US Government or have your counterparts raised this?

Ian Pearson: Well, we are certainly aware of the press reports alleging that there are black sites, and this has been discussed only this week over lunch at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. As a result of this, the UK, as Presidency of the EU, has agreed to write to the United States on behalf of the EU on this issue to seek clarification.

Q97 Mr Pope: Are you saying we have not raised it before? They are our closest ally and we have not raised it at all?

Ian Pearson: What I am saying to you is that when it comes to "black sites" and, indeed, when it comes to rendition (which might be something that will crop up later on in these discussions), these are allegations, and it is right for us to ask the US for more information, and we are actively doing that.

Q98 Sandra Osborne: Could I ask you about the practice of the US to take suspected criminals to countries where torture is routinely used in interrogation? A number of other governments, the Spanish, the Swedish and Icelandic Governments, have asked the USA for information on these flights through their airports which may be involved in extraordinary renditions. Has the British Government asked the USA for an explanation of flights through British airspace?

Ian Pearson: Can I say, firstly, on this issue, and make very clear, that the UK Government does not deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person will be subject to torture or where there is a real risk that the death penalty will be applied. As far as extraordinary rendition is concerned, and some of the allegations that have been made with regards to the United States, we currently have no evidence that there is any foundation to the media allegations about US use of UK territory in rendition operations. We have, however, as I indicated, discussed this issue with our EU partners and the Foreign Secretary will be, on behalf of the EU, writing about the issue of rendition as well as the issue of "black sites".

Q99 Sandra Osborne: Writing to? The US Government?

Ian Pearson: The US Government. I would imagine it would be Condoleeza Rice.

Q100 Sandra Osborne: With respect, I find that quite surprising because that is the answer this Committee has had on various occasions - that the Government has no knowledge - and yet we hear that something like 210 flights have taken place since 9/11, many of them being in Scotland. I would have thought the Government would be far more interested to know urgently about that than appears to be the case if the Foreign Secretary is about to write now and ask the US. Surely there are relationships with the US Government where these things can be discussed.

Ian Pearson: As I say, certainly we are not aware of UK territory or airspace being used for the purposes of extraordinary rendition. We have not received any requests and we have not granted any permission for the use of UK territory or airspace for such purposes, so we can be very clear on that. The issue, however, arises because under UK and international law carriers are not obliged to provide a passenger list or to obtain permission from the Government to refuel. However, as I say, we are looking closely into this and we recognise it is a legitimate area of concern that people have and, as I say, in our capacity as Presidency of the EU we are taking this matter up with the United States.

Q101 Sandra Osborne: I would have thought there would have been more urgency about the situation long before now. Can you tell me if you are aware of the UNCH inquiry about extraordinary renditions where they are looking at the role of various countries in that regard? Has the Government been contacted about it at all?

Ian Pearson: I am advised that no, we have not been contacted about it yet.

Q102 Mr Keetch: Minister, you used the expression "UK territory". Does that include Diego Garcia which is a UK-dependent territory in the Indian Ocean? Does that include RAF Akrotiri which is a UK sovereign base in Cyprus, and does that include RAF Gibraltar which is a base in a British colony? Do you view that as UK territory?

Ian Pearson: I can say that the US authorities have repeatedly assured us that assertions in the press that there are or have ever been suspected terrorists and/or Iraqi prisoners under interrogation at Diego Garcia, or on any other vessels in British territorial waters, are unfounded. The British representative on Diego Garcia has also confirmed this to be the case. I am not sighted on the particular issue of Gibraltar but I would be extremely surprised indeed if that area had been used for holding terrorists or prisoners.

Q103 Mr Keetch: I am not suggesting that Gibraltar or Diego Garcia or Cyprus had been used for holding prisoners; my concern is, following the questions of Mrs Osborne, are those bases used to refuel aircraft that may be carrying prisoners in the process of extraordinary rendition?

Ian Pearson: We have no information that they are or have been.

Q104 Mr Keetch: Would it be required of the US authorities to request permission to use Diego Garcia, for example, for that purpose? Would they require our permission to do that? I can understand it if they are coming into RAF Northolt, but if they are coming into Diego Garcia would they require our permission?

Ian Pearson: I am not quite sure how air traffic control in Diego Garcia works. Certainly, as I said just a few moments ago, under UK and international law carriers are not obliged to provide passenger lists or obtain permission from the Government to refuel. I would imagine that that would apply to Gibraltar or Diego Garcia.

Q105 Mr Keetch: I just want to press you on this. The Government says "UK territory", and by reference to that most people assume we are talking about the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I want to know whether that includes Diego Garcia and whether that includes the sovereign base areas in Cyprus and any other bases or dependent territories we have around the world. If the United States is using those bases for the purpose of extraordinary rendition I would think that is just as disgraceful as if they were using RAF Northolt or a base in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I want to be clear about whether or not the policy of this Government is to deem Diego Garcia and these other bases as UK territory and, therefore, not be used for extraordinary rendition.

Ian Pearson: Let me just say on this that these areas would be regarded as British territory, to the very best of my understanding, and we are, as I have said, looking into these allegations and asking the United States about them. We will obviously want to receive satisfactory answers as soon as possible.

Q106 Mr Keetch: Would you be prepared to share those answers with this Committee?

Ian Pearson: Well, I am sure that that will be possible. Obviously, the reply, I would imagine, would go to the Foreign Secretary but I am sure he would want to put this in the public domain.

Q107 Ms Stuart: I gather that at a formal meeting on Monday of foreign ministers of the EU our fellow EU foreign ministers asked the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, on behalf of the EU, to write to the United States to ask them about the existence of CIA prisoners in Eastern Europe. Is that something which has concerned the United Kingdom before, or was that the first we were aware of it?

Ian Pearson: We were certainly aware of press reports that have alleged that the CIA has had these sites in Eastern Europe. As I indicated, this was discussed as you rightly say by foreign ministers at the General Affairs Council on Monday. The UK, reflecting those concerns - the concerns of other Member States and, indeed, of the UK itself - and acting in our capacity as UK Presidency, is writing to seek clarification of the situation from the United States.

Q108 Ms Stuart: We were aware of that but we were not spurred into action until other foreign ministers asked us to do so?

Ian Pearson: We discussed this as we discussed a range of foreign policy issues.

Q109 Ms Stuart: But did not do anything before then?

Ian Pearson: Well, we have discussions with the Americans on a regular basis on a variety of issues but, specifically on this, following this discussion the Foreign Secretary has agreed to write on this issue to Condoleeza Rice.

Q110 Chairman: Can I take you back to this question about the American flights? Is it fair to say that we have a policy of "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Ian Pearson: No, I do not think it is fair.

Q111 Chairman: We were told in a previous communication with the FCO that we have had that there is an annual, renewable agreement with the United States about the use of UK airports. Is that right?

Ian Pearson: My understanding is that, as I already indicated to you, carriers are not required to provide a passenger list nor to obtain permission for refuelling ----

Q112 Chairman: That was not my question: that we have an agreement with the US which is renewed on an annual basis about US flights or flights originating in the US into UK airports. Is that true?

Ian Pearson: I am not aware of this but I will, following you making this point, make investigations.

Q113 Chairman: If it is true, could we not make sure that in any future agreement, if they are renewed on an annual basis, we tighten up the procedures so that we have more information about what comes in and what goes out of the country?

Ian Pearson: As I say, I am not sighted on whether any such agreement exists so it would not be right to speculate on how it might be altered.

Q114 Chairman: I would be grateful if you could send us a note.

Ian Pearson: Let me make inquiries into this and I am happy to send you a note on it.

Chairman: Thank you very much.

Q115 Sir John Stanley: Minister, from what you have just said, can you clarify whether the Foreign Secretary has now written to the US to ask the specific question as to whether or not UK airspace has been used for extraordinary rendition flights?

Ian Pearson: My understanding is that the Foreign Secretary is writing following the General Affairs and External Relations Council on the issue of "black sites", but also I believe on the issue of extraordinary rendition.

Q116 Sir John Stanley: That is too generalised a response. I asked you a very specific question. It is clear that the letter is going to go but is the letter going to ask the specific question whether or not UK airspace has been used for extraordinary rendition flights? Is that going to be a question put in the letter?

Ian Pearson: I am not responsible for drafting the letter but I am sure the Foreign Secretary will want to take the comments of the Committee on board when considering drafting the letter. As pointed out to me as well, we will have to consult with EU partners on the wording of the letter, seeing as we are writing it in our capacity as Presidency. So I am sure that it will be a detailed letter that will cover the areas that both the UK and other Member States have concerns on.

Q117 Sir John Stanley: Should that not be two letters? Is it not imperative that a letter is written in a UK national capacity to ask the specific question, as the British Foreign Secretary, whether UK airspace has been used for extraordinary rendition flights, and that it should not be merged with the wider general letter written in our capacity as having the Presidency of the EU?

Ian Pearson: I do not think that we should be too bothered on whether there are one or two letters. What I do think we all want answers on is: "What is going on?" I think that is the key thing. I am sure that that request for information will be part of the letter that the Foreign Secretary writes.

Q118 Sir John Stanley: You will be aware, Minister, that the detailed press reporting of this has produced tail numbers of the aircraft in question. There has been no denial that these are CIA aircraft. The tail numbers have been traced to companies which have been shown demonstrably by the press inquiries to be simply front companies where the so-called company's address and telephone number simply rings out or where there is a brass name plate and no company behind it. Is it not deeply disturbing that such aircraft, operated by phantom companies, should without any question be operating through UK airspace? Is that not a matter of deep concern?

Ian Pearson: We are certainly aware of the press reports and allegations made about CIA flights. We are also aware of the level of information that supports those press reports. However, they remain allegations at this stage and it is right that we should make inquiries and ask the United States for more information about this. That is the stage we are at, at the moment. I am sure the Committee will want to monitor developments over the coming weeks on this matter.

Q119 Sir John Stanley: Could you give the Committee an assurance that officials in your department or, perhaps, elsewhere in government know perfectly well what is going on in terms of extraordinary rendition flights through UK airspace but have made the decision not to tell Ministers so that Ministers can hide behind the answer which was given to this Committee on 24 October: "We are not aware of the use of our territory or airspace for the purpose of extraordinary rendition"?

Ian Pearson: The remains the case, and I do not think it is right to say that officials are deliberately keeping information away from Ministers because that is the best way of protecting us from having to answer difficult questions. I think it is the simple truth that we are not aware, and that is the position at the moment, but we are certainly very aware of the allegations that have been made, we have seen the press reports and, as I say, the Foreign Secretary is asking the US for more information and will be writing in his official capacity as Presidency of the EU to do just that.

Q120 Sir John Stanley: So if the US Government should be replying to the Foreign Secretary's letter confirming that such flights have been taking place, when we come to ask you at what date did officials in your department or elsewhere within government know of this, the answer will be, from what you have just said, that no official knew anything at any time?

Ian Pearson: I am certainly not aware of any official who has knowledge of these flights and is keeping that knowledge to him or herself. We have looked into this and, as a Government, we just do not have information (when I say "as a Government" that means officials as well as Ministers) on this.

Q121 Chairman: Can I ask you a couple of questions about torture? Do we, as a Government, use information which comes from other countries where they have derived that information through torture?

Ian Pearson: Can I, firstly, say that the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture and we work hard with our international partners to eradicate this abhorrent practice. We are in a situation, and when replying to your question directly let me just say that the UK has extensive safeguards in regard to evidence that may be obtained by torture. The basic position is this: we, on a routine basis, will get a range of intelligence information from a wide variety of sources. Where that information comes from detainees and we have some suspicions that it might have been obtained by torture, that will be taken into account in our assessment and evaluation of the evidence.

Q122 Chairman: So the answer to my question is yes, you do make use of information which is derived from torture?

Ian Pearson: Let me answer it as directly as possible. As I say, the situation is we do get a wide range of information from a wide variety of sources. Where it comes from detainees and where we have grounds to believe that it might have been obtained through torture that would influence our assessment and evaluation of the evidence. Let me also say on this that when we get to the situation where there is evidence that might prevent a future suicide bombing and we have suspicions that that evidence might have been obtained through torture, well, I think we have to use that evidence. I do not think you can take a purist approach and completely ignore what might turn out to be vital evidence that will save the lives of UK citizens. However, let me be very clear that the UK does not condone and does not accept and has extremely strong procedures and safeguards as well with regards to evidence, and has a very strong policy indeed in terms of evidence obtained by torture. We do not condone those practices.

Q123 Chairman: We may not condone it but do we ask other countries where they got their information from?

Ian Pearson: We do not because other countries know the UK's very strong stance against torture. Frankly, I do not think there would be a lot of point saying to a particular country: "Was this information obtained by torture?" because I do not think they are likely to tell us the truth.

Q124 Mr Purchase: The Prime Minister, answering questions to the Liaison Committee yesterday, made a plea that most things should be weighed in the balance but he did condemn without reservation on the practices of torture. Now, you have just told us that we have to be realistic and understand that testimony gained under torture might still be useful. Should we not be condemning it without equivocation and should not our Government be practising what it preaches and not make use of this evidence? If it has come to us via torture and we believe that we should condemn torture without equivocation, how on earth can we have this - well, it is sophistry of the worst kind in a way - and say "We will still use this evidence"?

Ian Pearson: Let me be clear. I totally condemn evidence obtained by torture; the Government totally condemns torture; it is not acceptable, it is abhorrent ----

Q125 Mr Purchase: Tell us we do not use it then.

Ian Pearson: But in the real world, if you are seriously saying to me that if a piece of information comes to the attention of the British Government that there might be an incident and this is strong information that would save lives, are you really saying that we should put this aside and do nothing about it because it might have been obtained through the use of torture?

Q126 Mr Purchase: It is not for you to ask me questions, it is for me to ask you.

Ian Pearson: I am just saying to you these are incredibly difficult decisions. I think the Prime Minister is right to say they should be weighed in the balance and that, in these very extreme circumstances, if it is the case that we could save British lives by using some information which has been obtained by horrible means then I think we probably do have to do that.

Q127 Mr Maples: I wanted to ask you a question on that which my colleague did not want you to ask him, which is that it seems to me that it depends on what the information is used for, in the same way that we have laws which stop us using evidence improperly obtained against criminals but it does not stop us going and recovering the stolen goods because we have obtained the information improperly. It seems to me that if the Government were to be given information by a foreign country that, say, a terrorist plot was being hatched by these three people in this place, and you said: "It has come from Uzbekistan or Egypt or somewhere and we are not going to use it", I think this Committee would have some very tough questions to ask you afterwards if there was a terrorist outrage. I wonder if you think it is right to draw a distinction between the purposes for which the information is used. In other words, if you receive that kind of information and you then use it for our own police and security services to follow up and investigate whether it is true or not or not, that is rather different to using information that might have been obtained by torture to actually prosecute someone.

Ian Pearson: Torture is always wrong, it can never be defended, and we as a UK Government never use torture for any purpose including obtaining information. We certainly would not instigate others to do so. However, in the very real circumstances that you outline where information, which we have not asked for but which becomes available and we have suspicions about it being obtained under torture, could save British lives and that that is the major purpose of it, then I think it would be wrong and irresponsible for a government to ignore it. These are incredibly difficult decisions. That is why elected representatives are put in charge of weighing these things in the balance and making judgments about them. I notice that when some of the non-governmental organisations have been asked these questions it is very difficult for them to find answers to this because nobody - and I repeat nobody - feels comfortable about this at all. Certainly (let me be as absolutely plain as I can) the UK Government absolutely condemns the use of torture but, as I say, in the very, very rare occurrence where we have information that comes into our hands from a third country where we think that it might be obtained through torture, I do not personally think that it would be right, if that information could save British lives, that we should just say: "No, put it aside. We are not interested; we do not want to receive it." I think we have a responsibility to protect our people.

Q128 Chairman: Can I take you on to a related area, which is that previously the Government told us that it was not policy to deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that that person will be subjected to torture or where there is a real risk that the death penalty would be applied. Yet with regard to (I am not asking about the death penalty) torture, the countries which do torture people, we are now engaged in a process of producing memoranda of understanding and so-called diplomatic assurances and then considering removing people to a number of countries where it is known that torture has been and, as far as I am aware, still is used on occasion. How can we guarantee that people who we do send back to some of these countries in North Africa or elsewhere are not going to be subjected to torture? Do you agree that if there is, as was stated in the Jahal case in 1996 or in a more recent case to do with Russia, an endemic or recalcitrant problem people should not be sent back to those countries, even if you get an assurance?

Ian Pearson: The first thing to say is that this has not happened yet and we have not ----

Q129 Chairman: You have not sent anyone back yet?

Ian Pearson: We have not sent anyone back yet who has been detained under our terrorist legislation. We are, as you rightly say, looking to negotiate memoranda of understanding and we have signed memoranda of understanding with Jordan and Libya. The wording of the MOUs makes clear that treatment is expected to be in accordance with international obligations. You rightly mentioned that we will not send people back where there is a substantial risk that they will be tortured. That is a phrase that comes from the European Convention and it is something that is expected as part of the memoranda of understanding. We believe that deportation with assurances, such as memoranda of understanding, and, also, monitoring arrangements being put in place, which are again part of the MOUs, provides sufficient safeguards to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. These matters, however, will undoubtedly be tested in the courts, which will provide a further reassurance that what we are doing is acceptable and in conformity with our human rights obligations.

Q130 Chairman: How are we going to monitor that these assurances are kept?

Ian Pearson: Written into the memoranda of understanding is information about the monitoring requirements, and so the intention is that we would deport suspected terrorists and we would do so to countries who signed memoranda of understanding and who agreed to monitoring arrangements. This will require a significant amount of work. We are still discussing the details of monitoring arrangements at the moment, but we will go a long way to make sure that we take sufficient steps to have a level of confidence that there will not be a substantial risk to these people if they are deported.

Q131 Chairman: Can I have an assurance that nobody is going to be deported until you have got satisfactory monitoring arrangements in place?

Ian Pearson: Yes, I think I can give you that assurance.

Chairman: Can we move on, please, to Iraq?

Q132 Mr Keetch: There have been, as you know, Minister, a number of high profile issues resulting in British military personnel involved in abuse in Iraq, including court martials. There was also the case of the proceedings that were recently dropped against some British soldiers accused of murder in Iraq. I am aware and the Committee is aware of the rules of engagement of the British Armed Forces. Can you tell us a bit about, if you like, the rules of engagement of the British based private military companies that exists in Iraq, because it is certainly the case that there are thousands of British citizens in Iraq carrying weapons working for private military companies that are not covered by British Government rules of engagement for armed forces but, nevertheless, are doing work in that country? Does the British Government give advice to those companies as to what kind of human rights activities and security training and such that they should be doing out there?

Mr Pearson: I think that question is probably better directed at the Ministry of Defence, who are likely to have better information about this. As Minister with responsibility for human rights I would want to make sure that the human rights obligations of any individual and, indeed, any company, whether it is operating in Iraq or wherever, are closely followed, and certainly we want would want to make sure that UK companies who operate in Iraq are fully aware of their human rights obligations.

Q133 Mr Keetch: But you would certainly like it to be known that such British companies or British citizens working for such companies in Iraq - would be expected to operate within the similar guidance that we would expect of them if they were operating in the UK, for example? You would expect them to adhere to British standards, if you like. Shall I put it that way?

Ian Pearson: Yes.

Q134 Sir John Stanley: Do we think there are any other locations in Iraq where people are being held captive in the totally unacceptable conditions that have recently been exposed in the south?

Ian Pearson: I do not know. I do not have any information that would lead me to believe that there are other locations, but, again, that is not necessarily the information that a human rights minister might routinely expect to receive.

Q135 Sir John Stanley: What response was received from the Iraqi government to the very deep expressions of concern that the local foreign secretary made to the Iraqi government about the uncovering of these prisoners being held in hell-hole conditions?

Ian Pearson: We have raised our very serious concerns at a very senior level with the Iraqi government, and the Foreign Secretary has lobbied Vice-President Mehdi, who was visiting London at the time, and on October 17 we also released a statement, as EU Presidency, expressing our concern and welcoming the investigation that the Iraqis have launched into this incident. It is my understanding that the investigation is still going on, and clearly we will continue to show a very strong interest in the investigation and the outcome of it.

Q136 Sir John Stanley: Coming to a different issue, do you think there is any risk that the trial of Saddam Hussein may collapse because of the inability to provide adequate security both to the lawyers involved and also to witnesses?

Ian Pearson: What I can say on this is that we do want the trial to continue. We want to ensure that Saddam receives proper justice and a transparent and an open trial process. We have talked certainly to the Iraqis about this - they know very clearly our views on this - and there had to be concerns with the recent two horrible murders of the lawyers, but we think it right that the trial should continue, and we have been encouraging the Iraqi government to make sure that all the necessary steps are taken to provide protection for the legal team and, indeed, all those others who are involved in the trial process.

Q137 Sir John Stanley: Would you agree that it would be a pretty grim reflection of the consequences of US and British intervention in Iraq that we could not leave it if we were simply unable to provide a proper judicial process to try the former dictator?

Ian Pearson: It is not up to us to provide a proper judicial process. It is up to the Iraqis, and we should acknowledge the great strides that they have made. They are in a far more forward position than they were with regards to the IST and the legal process, and I think it is up to us to encourage them to make sure that they make further improvements to their legal processes, and I am confident that that is what they want to do for the future as well.

Q138 Andrew Mackinlay: I want to take you back to Paul Keech's point when he questioned you about private security companies and you referred Paul Keech to the Ministry of Defence. Can I gently remind you that before you were a minister of foreign office the Foreign Office produced a Green Paper on the private security companies, not the Ministry of Defence. It came here to this Committee, who produced a report, and the motive was regulation: because one foresaw some of the things which Paul Keech referred to. I remember at the time taunting the Foreign Office, saying, "This is going to be pigeon holed", and broadly they said, "My God, how can you suggest such a thing?" Is it not pigeon-holed? Is it dead? Is this parrot dead, this Green Paper on regulating private military companies because of human right considerations?

Ian Pearson: I am not cited on this, so I cannot give you an answer on that other than the general answer.

Q139 Andrew Mackinlay: You see my point, though, do not you? The fact is you are the human rights minister. It was not I who initiated it, it was during McShane's period and Cook's, and it was a Green Paper produced, we dealt with it at length and it is dead as a dodo. It is dead as a dodo, I put it to you, for the reasons which Keech referred to, the fact that it is too sensitive. It raises the question of rules of engagement, recruitment, where they come from, where they are going to, companies being able to dissolve themselves at arm's length, distance, "Nothing to do with us, guv", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Could you come back to us on this, because I am putting it to you, the Government have ducked it because it is a hot potato and it does raise serious human rights issues and you should know about it?

Mr Pearson: I am certainly not prepared to pronounce the parrot dead yet.

Q140 Andrew Mackinlay: That is good.

Ian Pearson: As I say, I do not have information to hand specifically on this. If it would be helpful I would be happy to write to the Committee on this.

Q141 Chairman: Perhaps you could inform the Foreign Secretary that we have raised this matter. He is before us in a couple of weeks' time, so I am sure we would like something before then, if possible.

Ian Pearson: I will bring it to his attention.

Q142 Andrew Mackinlay: On Iran, we were told that the United Kingdom would sponsor the resolution of the UN General Assembly criticising human rights in Iran. Many of us feel, and this Committee has in the past raised concern about the dialogue and, we should understand, nuclear weapons development would eclipse the work of human rights in Iran. Since the new regime has come in there has been a high increase in the number of executions, which the Iranian government themselves have indicated. It seems as though there is a serious deterioration of human rights. Human Rights Watch said to us that the criticism of the HMG has really not gone beyond mere rhetoric. Can you comment upon this. Also, traditionally the European Union used to sponsor the General Assembly Resolution, but that seems to have been picked up by Canada, which rather underscores the trying to drop this, get away from it. That is the charge, sort of thing?

Ian Pearson: Let me say, first of all, that you are absolutely right to point to Iran's poor human rights record, and you are also right to say that the situation has deteriorated further this year. We are certainly very deeply concerned about that, and that is one of the reasons why we co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Iran, which I am pleased to say was adopted just a few days ago, expressing the UN's concern. I am also pleased to say, and, again, I perhaps could have mentioned this earlier, that we have also seen successful EU sponsored resolutions on Burma, on the DPRK, on Uzbekistan, and just today the General Assembly is going to be discussing resolutions on Sudan and on the DLC.

Q143 Andrew Mackinlay: Did you sponsor the Iran resolution?

Ian Pearson: We co-sponsored with Canada the Iran resolution. We also co-sponsored a successful resolution on Turkmenistan as well, and that is indicative of the UK's and also the EU's strong concerns about the human rights situation in Iran at the moment.

Q144 Andrew Mackinlay: My final question is a quickie. With the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran which you have acknowledged, is there a point where the United Kingdom would go to the Security Council, which I understand is competent for us to do (and I do mean to the Security Council), is there a threshold where you would say, "Thus far and no further. This is intolerable", particularly on religious grounds?

Ian Pearson: We will look at all options for the future. So far there have been, to my understanding, a number of day marches on Iran, certainly a number of public comments and concerns have been expressed bilaterally. We have had, as we say, the UN General Assembly resolution being passed just a few days ago, so we are keeping up the pressure on Iran to reform and to improve its human rights practices. Whether we need to go further along the lines that you are suggesting is something that we will want to keep under review, but we would certainly want to urge Iran to address the concerns that have been passed in the resolution that, as I say, succeeded in the United Nations just a few days ago, and we are hoping Iran will respond positively.

Q145 Mr Pope: Could I raise UK relations with Israel, and some human rights concerns there. I wanted to suggest to you, Minister, that British policy has not been a great success in relation to Israel. Just looking at the Foreign Office Human Rights Report, which lists a number of British government concerns in Israel - it raises the issue of how the Israeli defence force treats Palestinians, the Israeli barrier which is strangling some Palestinian settlements and towns in the occupied West Bank, the discrimination against Arab Israelis, lack of freedom of movement, what happens at check-point crossings, targeted killings, settler violence and in the conclusion it says that Britain is working with Israeli human rights organisations to monitor the check-point. It seems to me this strong on description of a real problem and really weak on conclusions and action. I wondered if you could share with the Committee what the priorities are for the UK government in relation to Israel and what benchmarks have we got to judge the success or, I might suggest to you otherwise, failure of our policy there?

Ian Pearson: Certainly the UK's ambitions with regard to Israel and the Middle East peace process extend beyond purely human rights issues, and, as you are very aware, the Foreign Secretary has been extremely active when it comes to encouraging dialogue and moving forward with the road map. Again the UK, I believe, has played a very positive and leading role in encouraging developments. We do, of course, have concerns about the barrier, and we raise those concerns regularly with the Israeli government. We recognise Israel's right to self-defence, but the barrier's route should not be on or behind the Green Line and it should not be on occupied territory. We believe that construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is illegal and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, Kim Howells, who has ministerial responsibility for the Middle East, has made our concerns very clear to the government of Israel. I think Israel is at a very pivotal moment in its history at this point in time. We certainly want to encourage the disengagement process, we want to see the road map succeed, and we will bend all our efforts to try and bring this about and to try and bring lasting peace and security to people in that part of the world.

Q146 Mr Pope: I do not want to labour this point Chairman, and obviously this Minister is not the minister for the Middle East peace process, but it seems to me that the whole process stalled; and what I really want is some assurance that diplomatically, even if we are not moving forward as rapidly as I would like on the road map, and we can discuss for ever the reasons for that, but I would at least like the assurance that the UK government is raising at the highest diplomatic levels all these concerns about the barrier, about the treatment of Arab Israelis, about the occupied territories, and, I would have thought, an assurance that the UK government will robustly continue to raise these issues with the Israeli government?

Ian Pearson: I can give that assurance. We have already raised these issues and will continue to raise issues of concern, including issues of concern with regard to some of the actions of the Israeli defence force. We need to be clear that there is no problem with us raising these issues with Israel while at the same time giving positive encouragement to Israel as part of the Middle East peace process, and, again, it is important that we continue to exert and use what influence we have to encourage peace and prosperity in the region while at the same time keep pointing out human rights abuses and encouraging Israel to deal with those effectively. I can give you exactly the assurance that you are looking for on this.

Q147 Sir John Stanley: Minister, some members of the Committee had an informal briefing on the detailed progress on the construction of the barrier beyond the Green Line; in other words - what you have acknowledged in your answer to Mr Pope - the illegal section, and it is factually indisputable that the construction of the barrier illegally beyond the Green Line continues apace, it is proceeding at a very fast rate, it is going to be completed, we understand, within the course of the next 12 months, including round the whole of East Jerusalem. Is it not factually the case - it may be difficult for the Government to acknowledge this - that the Government's concerns and the Government's representations to the Israeli government in relation to the illegal sections of the barrier, which is a great majority of it, have been thus far a 100 per cent failure?

Ian Pearson: Certainly the UK government's position on the barrier remains very clear indeed, and it is as I outlined. We continue to believe that the barrier itself is an obstacle to the peace process and we continue to say that the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is illegal. I would just note that on 15 September this year the Israeli High Court ordered a re-routing of the barrier around Alfei Menashe, a West Bank settlement near the Green Line, because of its damaging impact on Palestinian villages in the area. That is a positive development, but we continue to be extremely concerned at the route of the barrier on occupied territory, and I am sure this Committee shares those concerns as well, and I just want to assure the Committee that we will continue to make strong representations with regard to the barrier because we believe, as I say, that it is damaging the peace development process.

Q148 Sir John Stanley: Would you not agree, it is not merely damaging to the peace process, it is incredibly damaging to human rights as well, and the physical facts on the ground are that the greater the length of the barrier the more impossible it becomes for Palestinian farmers to farm their land on the other side of the barrier, it becomes more impossible for Palestinian businesses of all size to operate effectively because they have got to transit their goods, some of which may be in a deteriorating condition, if they are things like fruit and vegetables, et cetera, through the various check-points and is directly undermining any real possibility of achieving the objective that everybody supposedly agrees on, which is a viable Palestinian state in economic terms. Do you acknowledge that the barrier is a fundamental human rights issue?

Ian Pearson: I agree that there are human rights implications as a result of the construction of the barrier, and there are, indeed, as well a number of practical economic implications. When you are talking about confiscation or destruction of land, destruction of property, when you are talking about access to issues, and particularly the impact on farming that you mentioned, this is destroying people's livelihoods and their ability to have a good livelihood in many circumstances. It is a matter of great concern to the UK government, and I agree with you that there are clear human rights implications about this, and it is one of the reasons why we do take up the issue of the barrier. It is not just because of its potentially totemic effect on the peace process.

Q149 Mr Horam: Minister, can I take you to a very different area, namely arms exports. I think the Foreign Secretary said recently that he wants to initiate an arms trade treaty and set that in motion.

Ian Pearson: Yes.

Q150 Mr Horam: Why then is the RU authorising the export of arms to no less than 19 of the 20 countries which you identify in your report as countries of great concern from a human rights point of view?

Ian Pearson: Firstly, can I say that we have, I think, one of the strongest export control regimes to be found anywhere in the world when it comes to the export of arms.

Q151 Mr Horam: How is that consistent with exporting to no less than 19 of the 20 countries which you identify as being of most concern to human rights? How do you square that?

Ian Pearson: When you look at some of the detail of this, and I think it is important to look at the detail, in countries like Nepal, for instance, arms exports, to my understanding, are human rights training to the military and also bomb disposal equipment.

Q152 Mr Horam: Nepal is rather an exceptional case, I imagine?

Ian Pearson: I do not accept that it is an exceptional case. I think it is the case with other countries as well that a lot of our so-called arms exports will be body armour for police and the military engaged in counter-narcotics work on the border, they might be de-mining equipment in a number of countries.

Q153 Mr Horam: But a lot of them will be light arms and weapons of various kinds?

Ian Pearson: Everything is assessed on a case by case basis. I would be surprised if they were light arms, because that is not the sort of weaponry that I would expect would get through our rigorous export licensing regime. It is not actually something that the UK manufactures a great deal.

Q154 Mr Horam: You seem slightly uncertain

Ian Pearson: I am not certain about this at all, but what I hope I am clear in saying to the Committee is that everything is assessed very rigorously on a case by case basis and we do not allow arms exports, or the export of military equipment, to be a little bit more precise, if we think that there is a clear risk that these exports would be used for internal repression purposes, and I see, on behalf of the Foreign Office, a lot of the crucial submissions when it comes to arms exports. The DTI has final ministerial responsibility when deciding this, but there is a very firm process indeed.

Q155 Mr Horam: The DTI rather than the MoD?

Ian Pearson: The DTI has the final say.

Q156 Mr Horam: And therefore you, as the Minister?

Ian Pearson: I have FCO ministerial responsibility for looking at potentially contentious export licensing applications.

Q157 Mr Horam: So you put your DTI hat on when it is uncontentious?

Ian Pearson: And Malcolm Wicks, as DTI Minister, has the final decision on export licensing applications, so it goes through a number of ministerial eyes as well as some detailed scrutiny by officials. As I say, the key point here is everything is assessed on a case by case basis and we do have, as I say, very rigorous controls indeed. I think, frankly, it is a bit of an old chestnut to say that we are exporting arms to 19 out of the top 20 countries we are concerned with, because, as I say, the reality of it is that in a lot of these cases it will be bomb-disposal equipment, it will be de-mining equipment, it will be body armour, it might be communications equipment to help their policing operations work more effectively in dealing with drugs problems that they have in their countries; and that is the reality of the situation.

Mr Horam: But not all of it falls into those categories?

Q158 Chairman: Perhaps you could give us a note and give us some further information. I know the Quadripartite Committee, which some of us have served on, have looked at this issue on a regular basis, but some of the problems we have is when we get aggregate reports without breaking it down to different components and different types of export; so if we could have a note which went through the countries of concern and, where there are the kinds of things that you are talking about, if that could be made clear, I think that would go some way to answering Mr Horam's questions.

Ian Pearson: Can I look at that, Chairman. I just have two concerns. One is, as I say, we look at things on a case by case basis and there are potentially commercial confidentiality issues if we are naming particular sort of companies.

Q159 Chairman: I understand that.

Ian Pearson: The other thing to say is that there is, as I am sure you are aware, an annual report on export licensing applications.

Q160 Chairman: Yes, and that is looked at by the Quadripartite Committee?

Ian Pearson: With those two points in mind, can I take your request away and if I can write something that is sensible that I can send to the Committee, I am happy to do so.

Mr Horam: That is helpful, because the fact is, in certain answers you give it is easy to generalise and in that way conceal all that needs to be revealed, however well-meaning you may be. Therefore, if we get a bit of detail it will assist?

Chairman: We will look at whatever your response is and, if necessary, come back to you in future, or may be the Quad Committee will ask the Foreign Secretary about it at some point, but one way or another we way will get further answers on this.

Q161 Ms Stuart: Minister, I think we are asking you to wear so many hats that I am beginning to get worried about your human rights?

Ian Pearson: That is very kind of you.

Q162 Ms Stuart: I am also very conscious that your colleague, Alexandra Hall Hall, has not had a chance to say anything at any stage as we take you round this Thomas Cook tour around the various parts of the world where we still have concerns, so feel free to draw in your colleague. Can I take you to part of what used to be the Soviet Union and, in particular, if you were to look at the Ukraine, Georgia and Kurdistan. The Foreign Office's own report actually, I think, makes observations about progress which were made in terms of the spread of democracy. We had in the Ukraine the Orange Revolution, we had in Georgia the Rose Revolution, but there are one or two concerns, particularly in terms of changes in the nature of the law which happened in Georgia, there are still problems with freedom of information. The basic thrust of my question is that whilst these developments are welcome, we still have much further to go, but, given that those areas geographically are strategically extremely important to us, can you reassure us that we are not trading unduly their strategic importance, i.e. the war with Turin, and that we would further push for human rights in those areas?

Ian Pearson: Yes, I can give you that assurance. Recently I attended the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting. I did not stay there for the full fortnight of it, but I was there sufficiently long to get a very strong impression of the level of detail and the scrutiny that goes on when it comes to raising human rights issues with just the countries that you are mentioning. I think the OSCE is an effective body actually in terms of its work in promoting democracy and providing the challenge to countries that have poor human rights records, and we as a UK government very strongly support it. You are right to point to the strategic significance of countries like Ukraine and Georgia, and we recognise that, but, as with other countries in the world, we always feel very strongly and make our representations when it comes to human rights abuses.

Q163 Mr Purchase: We have continuing and considerable concerns about Turkey. It is on the brink of Europe, it is on the brink of getting permission to apply, and all the rest of those things. Would you like to tell us what the view is of Turkey's human rights record vis-à-vis its European status?

Ian Pearson: Yes, I had the opportunity to do a German debate on Turkey very recently, and we do have concerns that continue about the human rights situation in Turkey. The debate in question was prompted by the prospect of a well-renowned author, Orhan Pamuk, being brought to trial on part of Turkey's penal code, and we are very concerned about this situation. I will not rehearse the speech that I made then, but let me just say that Turkey has made considerable progress when it comes to human rights, and that was recognised as part of the decision which the UK strongly supported to open accession negotiations to the European Union. Turkey still has some way to go. There was a report produced very recently - in fact it is called the Regular Report, which is really an annual report - and the Commission's 2005 Regular Report on Turkey was presented on 9 November and it noted that political transition is on-going in Turkey, but it said that the pace of change has slowed in 2005 and implementation of the reforms remains uneven. I think that is a good summary of the situation. Turkey has gone quite along way, but it needs to go further, and, what is more, its government knows and accepts that it needs to go further and it is actively trying to put measures in place to do just that. As a government we have been doing a number of things to try and support Turkey and its development. We have been doing quite a lot of work in terms of training judges, for instance. Again, I think that is part of the democracy in human rights building work that is on-going there. It is going to take some time, but we are certainly very optimistic that it is on the right path.

Q164 Mr Purchase: Human Rights Watch have reported that the authorities continue to try to close down gay and lesbian organisations - close venues. How important do you think that is to Turkey's efforts to become, if you like, a more civilised country in terms of human rights?

Ian Pearson: Turkey will have to address all of these issues if it is to realise its ambitions to become a member of the EU. I believe very strongly that opening the door to Turkey, which is what we did on 3 October when an agreement was reached to open negotiations, is very much the right thing to do. It is a huge challenge for Europe as well as a huge challenge for Turkey, but to say that we are prepared to open the EU to a Muslim country that has a population that is bigger than any other EU Member State, I think is a good statement to make.

Q165 Mr Purchase: It is a bit incompatible with European views on gay and lesbian rights, though, is it not?

Ian Pearson: Turkey will have to conform to EU standards and practices when it comes to human rights and its obligations. Turkey is on a path of transition, and I do not think anybody is suggesting that that path is going to be absolutely smooth and there are going to be no problems in it, because that would be not true; and there are quite lot of areas where Turkey still does need to sort things out, but I think what we need to do is to encourage the Government to be active in those areas, like the areas that you have mentioned, and to provide what reasonable support we can as it makes that transition.

Q166 Andrew Mackinlay: You used the words "Turkey makes great progress", but that is a formulation of words which we hear all the time. Surely human rights are indivisible. It is not like an option where you gradually go there. I find it incredible. Your own report -  I think it is in this report - says that impunity continues to exist in the security forces, and in Question Time recently I asked another Foreign Office minister about the case of the man who had written about the Armenian massacres, was then prosecuted and your colleague minister said, "Oh, but the man charged, he still wants to support Turkey's entry into the European Union", as if that made it all right. What I find amazing is that both the United Kingdom government and the European Union are probably not spelling it out sufficiently that this is not something you can gradually reach, a good human rights record, it is required now?

Ian Pearson: You are absolutely right to say human rights is indivisible, but it is not an on/off switch. I think it is important to recognise that very often it is a whole range of legislation that needs to be introduced, training that needs to be done and a mindset amongst the population as well that needs to be changed, and Turkey is under no illusions about the EU's position when it comes to human rights. It knows, I believe, full well that the EU expects to see major developments and major improvements in the human rights situation in Turkey, but I think you have in Turkey, as in other countries as well, to recognise that there is not just a sort of magic button and a country can suddenly become human rights completely over night.

Q167 Andrew Mackinlay: No, but I think, Minister, there is an important point here. I want to acknowledge what you said. You have to change people's attitudes, and so on. I think everybody acknowledges that. Even in our own jurisdictions, for instance, we have had in the past two decades to work to change people's attitudes, but what we did is put the legislative arrangements in place saying, "That is the law", and then you have to educate people on equal rights, equal opportunities, PACE reforms and so on. We have had to do that, but the Parliament and the Government said this is what the position is, and I think that is where you are blurring the two things. You are quite right. You have got to change attitudes throughout Turkish society in some cases, probably in some institutions like the Army the Police Force, probably expectations with regards to education rights for women, et cetera, but what could and should be does is Turkey implementing those things in legislation now?

Ian Pearson: It is actually doing a number of those things. Abolition of the death penalty, new protections against torture, greater freedoms of expression, association and religion, greater cultural rights for Kurds and for others have all been part of measures that the Turkish government has implemented, a number of them requiring legislation. That is why I say Turkey is on the right path. It has introduced a lot of the legislation. Some of the criticisms at the moment in the problem areas, like Orhan Pamuk that I referred to, but because some of the new legislation that has been introduced has been either poorly interpreted by the courts or maybe there is some suggestion that the legislation itself could be improved on, but it is not the fact that Turkey is doing nothing. It is making significant steps. As I say, the Regular Report does moot that the progress has slowed somewhat this year, and we will continue to put pressure on Turkey to make improvements to the human rights situation within the country.

Chairman: I am conscious of the time. We have got about 20 minutes more and lots of other areas to cover; so we are going to have to move on.

Q168 Mr Keetch: Minister, on this Thomas Cook tour that Miss Stuart referred to, can I ask you to join me on the aircraft and fly north from Ankara up towards Moscow. Obviously what is happening in Russia is of concern to the government, and rightly so, and there are some very worrying aspects in terms of media freedom, NGO community, for example, which you heard about yesterday, changes there, growing racism and xenophobia. Can you say a little bit about how we are trying to persuade our Russian friends of the need for human rights: because this is a very powerful country with a very proud and fine history, and our negotiations dealing with that have to be done in perhaps a slightly different way than we with other countries that we may be discussing today; so we welcome your comments on Russia.

Ian Pearson: The first thing I want to say is that Russia is a key partner for the UK. We want it to be stable, prosperous and an important member of the international community. I think we need to recognise that Russia has come a long way and that the progress on the back of significant reform has been remarkable. What we want to do is to continue to work with Russia to ensure that the momentum of reforming is not lost and that change moves in the right direction, but there are a number of concerns that we have. You mentioned a number of them in the question. We remain concerned about the human rights situation in Chechnya, in particular there are still reports coming from the valuable work that is done by NGOs, reports of extra judicial killings, arbitrary detention and torture, and we are also concerned at reports that instability is growing in other regions than in North Caucasus as well. We discussed these with Russia in an open way. During President Putin's visit to London as part of the EU/Russia summit both he and the Prime Minister conducted high level talks regarding human rights issues, and we do have an EU/Russia and a UK/Russia human rights dialogue as well where we raise specifically our issues of concern with them.

Q169 Mr Keetch: Specifically we have heard concerns in the past about the activities of the British Council in Russia being hampered to a degree. I know it is not specifically in your responsibility area, but certainly it would be the view of the British government that all aspects of government working in Russia should be able to work in a free and open way and that we would not want to see any constraints on the activities of organisations such as the British Council or indeed other NGOs?

Ian Pearson: You are right to say that it is not my area, but I am happy to agree with you that certainly the British Council should be allowed to operate in an open way, as it does in other countries right across the world.

Q170 Mr Pope: We can now go south-east to Tashkent. I wanted to ask about Britain's relationship with Uzbekistan. It seems to me that there is a difficult trade-off between your own interest in this in human rights and the Foreign Office's more strategic interest given the important geo-political significance of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan does appear to have one of the worst human rights records in the entire world. Could you assure us that Britain is no longer providing military assistance to the Uzbek government? For example, the British government did provide marksmanship training to Uzbek forces, and I just remind you that Uzbek forces did shoot dead 500 civilians in Andijan in May of this year. Can you assure us that we are no longer providing that kind of assistance?

Ian Pearson: I can provide the assurance that we are no longer providing that sort of assistance. As I think you might be aware, on 3 October the EU foreign ministers decided to implement an arms embargo and visa restrictions on those deemed to be responsible for the disproportionate use of force in Andijan. It was also agreed that there should be suspension of all technical meetings under the partnership co-operation agreement. We supported the reorientation of the Commission's funding programme in Uzbekistan to support an increased focus on poverty reduction and information of democracy and human rights in a civil society. I mentioned earlier that a resolution on Uzbekistan has been passed in the UN General Assembly. I have got a copy of this in front of me today. I do not think I would be helpful, given the time constraints, to read it.

Q171 Chairman: We can read it if you send it to us.

Ian Pearson: But I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of it, but it strongly calls on the governments of Uzbekistan to implement fully and without any delay the recommendations of the report of the Mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a whole range of other things including, I think, importantly asking for a full and independent review of what went on in Andijan; so we are at a UK level and at an EU level pressing very strongly on the issue of human rights and I think the UN resolution indicates that.

Q172 Mr Pope: Our last ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, not a great fan of the Secretary of State, I understand, has given some evidence in writing to the Committee suggesting that the Foreign Office had subordinated human rights underneath strategic concerns, and what I would really like is some assurance that that is not the case. Could I ask you what practical steps we can further take to tackle Uzbek's human rights failings? Just as an example, I think Uzbekistan is still involved in the NATO partnership for peace, and one of the things that we might usefully do is raise whether or not it is appropriate for that to continue with our NATO partners.

Ian Pearson: I think that is a very helpful suggestion. When it comes to any country that has little or no respect for its human rights or an impertinent human rights record, we always judge matters on a case by case basis, and in some cases we will have an arms embargo, in some cases, such as Burma, we will have a common position that is agreed at an EU level that will implement a range of sanctions. There are a range of ways in which we can express our views and the views of the EU and the views of the world community through the UN, through general resolutions through the Security Council, as you are well aware. As I say, we have just only agreed a UN General Assembly resolution on Uzbekistan. We are now calling very strongly on Uzbekistan to abide by what the UN resolution actually says, but it is helpful to look at other ways in which we might want to bring pressure to bear on the Uzbek government and to express our displeasure about what is going on there.

Chairman: We were going to ask a number of questions about a number of countries in Africa, including Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea and Ethiopia. I think we are going to have to communicate with you in writing on those, but I would like to bring in Sir John Stanley on Zimbabwe.

Q173 Sir John Stanley: Just a couple of questions, please. I am not suggesting that the blame here lies by any means exclusively at the door of the British government, but is it not the case, in reality, that the pressure exerted thus far on the Mugabe regime as far as human rights is concerned by the British government has so far yielded zero results?

Ian Pearson: What is happening in Zimbabwe is a disgrace. You have got a ruler of that country who seems to pay no heed to the needs of his people and is acting in a way that ignores human rights, is completely in breach of the rule of law and holds in contempt the sorts of values that we in the UK strongly believe in. We have tried, through a range of means, to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean regime, and Mugabe is very clear indeed about what the UK's position is, but you are right to point out that all the words, all that we have said has not had the impact that we would like to see. We just want to see a democratic government that does the right thing by its people, and that is not what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment. We are doing all we can to talk to Zimbabwe's neighbours, because potentially South Africa and other states, the members of SADEC, for instance, potentially might have more influence over Zimbabwe than the UK or the EU, and certainly Mugabe sees the UK almost as beyond the pale as far as he is concerned; so it is a reflection of the strong criticisms that we have made in the UK about his regime, and we do not apologise for that, but we will use whatever avenues and opportunities there are to continue to express displeasure about the regime and to try and encourage others who might have more leverage with Mugabe to try and get him to change his ways.

Q174 Sir John Stanley: Minister, is it not the case that the scale of human rights violations by the Mugabe regime, the severity of them, the near genocidal impact that this is having on the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Africans in that country, does this not make Mr Mugabe a prime candidate for consideration of being brought before the International Criminal Court?

Ian Pearson: Certainly the scale of what is going on in Zimbabwe, we believe as a UK government, is something that we have extremely serious concerns about. Whether what is going on would meet some of the specific legal criteria to justify referral to the International Criminal Court is something that I would not be legally qualified to give you a view on, but certainly we want to look at every opportunity we can to continue to put pressure on the Zimbabwean regime to see change in that country which is so desperately needed.

Q175 Sir John Stanley: As I have had letters from members of your ministerial team in the Foreign Office on this particular issue of Mr Mugabe and the possible basis of a reference to the ICC, I wonder whether you could let us have a note setting out the Government's present position on that point?

Ian Pearson: Yes, I would be happy to.

Chairman: Thank you. We have got five minutes left. Two quick areas, and they will have to be very brief.

Q176 Sandra Osborne: In relation to Colombia, despite the demobilisation process, there are still strong links between the military and the paramilitary groups. Some of the NGOs believe that the UK government should assist UK military assistance to Colombia. What is your view of that and what monitoring mechanisms does the Government have on its military assistance to Colombia?

Ian Pearson: I am advised that UK military assistance to Colombia focuses on mine-disposal training and human rights training, and this is the point that I made before when we were talking about countries of concern. UK military training introduces security personnel to British defence concepts, including the importance of accountable and democratic action, and we use the best information available to assure ourselves that Colombian military personnel benefiting from UK assistance are not engaged in activities that violate human rights or that aid internal repression and that they are not in collusion with paramilitary organisations. This goes as far as including personal interviews and background checks, and really the focus on what we are doing is on providing assistance, focusing, as I say, on mine-disposal training and training in human rights, which we think is a good thing to do. I know that sometimes these things get classified as something else that might appear to be a bad thing to do, but I happen to think human rights training and how to dispose of mines safely is something that we ought to be supporting as a government.

Q177 Mr Pope: Could I just raise China and the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. I have been very critical but the Committee has been quite critical of this dialogue in the past, because we believe that the existence of the dialogue provides a cloak of respectability for the Chinese government to give the impression that it is taking human rights concerns seriously, but simultaneously not much is happening. This is a country making rapid economic progress but there has been no progress on human rights. Personally would scrap it, because I think it is not worth it, but I realise that is not the Government's position. Could I ask that the Government consider setting some goals for the dialogue, a timetable for those goals to be met and to then assess the usefulness of the dialogue against some kind of benchmark? At the moment, it seems to me, we are just engaged an endless dialogue without really a point. I think we should set some targets for what we want to achieve, a timetable to achieve those targets and an assessment that, if we do not reach those targets, we reassess the viability of the dialogue?

Ian Pearson: First of all, can I say something about China's economic development, because over the last 20 years China has taken one-third of a billion people out of extreme poverty, and I think that is a huge achievement, and it is providing better living standards for people in China, which I think is a basic human right; so it is an important development and we need to recognise that. I think China itself recognises that it needs to do more in the issue of human rights, and we have seen slow progress. There is often, when we look at countries, a choice to be made. Should we engage with a country and have a human rights dialogue or should we go down the route of UN resolutions and expressing our concerns in that way? I believe that strategic engagement is very much the right path to follow as far as China is concerned. I understand the points you are making about giving it a specific timetable, but what I would want to say in response is that we actually assist these things on pretty much an on-going basis. We evaluate the response that we have to each part of our human rights dialogue, and the same happens with the EU/China human rights dialogue as well. I also think it is useful to note as a sign of progress that the EU special rapporteur on torture is actually in China at the moment, and, again, I think that is a positive development that China is opening up, and I think that, as China develops economically, we will also see improvements in the human rights situation there.

Q178 Mr Pope: Can I ask the Minister, would he at least consider this concept of a timetable setting goals and not rule it out completely?

Ian Pearson: I am happy to consider it, but, as I say, we tend to evaluate these things on an on-going basis. I think what is important is that we continue to process of strategic engagement. Yes, we would obviously like to see progress being made, but trying to hold people to targets is perhaps not the best way to do it, but I will certainly reflect on what you say on this.

Q179 Chairman: We are going to come back to China in the quite near future as a committee when we will be doing an inquiry next year. I am sure we will be raising a lot of these issues in detail with you, both in writing and hopefully on other occasions. Can I also say, you have had two hours and your human rights do need to now be preserved. There are a number of countries we did not mention - Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Indonesia - and, I think, there are some other areas that we may well be writing to you about. Clearly your remit is huge, as we questioned you at the start, and you also have your trade responsibilities. I think the fact that we have not been able to get through all of these areas is an indication of the vast scope of your job. I am sure we will have other opportunities to question you. We are grateful for you coming along today. Thank you and Miss Hall Hall for being with us.

Ian Pearson: Can I just thank the Committee for inviting me today. I think it is absolutely right that you should hold us to account on what the UK government is doing with regards to human rights. I am sure the Committee will be pleased and, indeed, relieved to know that it is not just my responsibility. Although I have lead policy responsibility for human rights, as I hope I made clear, Foreign Office ministers will regularly raise human rights for the countries for which they have ministerial responsibilities; so to that extent human rights responsibilities are shared right across the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministerial team. I certainly look forward to having the opportunity to talk to you about your work on China. I was looking at the terms of reference that you set for the inquiry, and I think we can have a very interesting discussion on what is a very important and topical foreign policy area. Thank you very much indeed.

Chairman: Thank you.