§ 3.24 p.m.
§ The Earl of Liverpoolasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the visit of President Jiang Zemin of China to London, they will set out the criteria in respect of human rights which underlie an ethical foreign policy.
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, the Government have placed human rights at the heart of foreign policy. We believe in the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core United Nations human rights instruments. We are committed to protecting and promoting these rights, working through our bilateral relationships and with our European Union and other international partners. In implementing this policy we take account of the individual characteristics of each situation, and seek to use the combination of approaches—of dialogue and pressure—that is most likely to secure real human rights improvements on the ground.
§ The Earl of LiverpoolMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of an article this week in the New Statesman by John Lloyd stating that the ethical dimension of our foreign policy launched just over two years ago by this Government is now in great danger? Can the Minister assure the House that she is fully seized of the importance of protecting human rights in this country, particularly as regards the right to peaceful demonstration? It is only by example that we can expect to influence others.
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I can give the noble Earl that assurance. The ethical dimension of the Government's foreign policy is in fact a set of principles that informs all aspects of our policy-making. That means that we now give higher priority to human rights issues in our foreign policy, and the Government have made real changes. We have introduced tougher arms export licensing criteria and we have succeeded in persuading other European partners to implement similar criteria. In June 1998 at a conference in Rome, noble Lords know that we played a role in the agreement to set up the international criminal court. Furthermore, we have increased our support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We have done a plethora of things to support the structure that ensures that human rights are a reality not only here in Great Britain.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that in the FCO's mission statement published just after the Government came into office there was a promise to promote the values of human rights and democracy for others that we demand for ourselves? Can the Minister tell us precisely what the Prime Minister did for the people of Tibet when President Jiang came here?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, as noble Lords know, when President Jiang spoke with the 384 Prime Minister the subject of human rights was directly raised by the Prime Minister. Noble Lords will also recall that the day before that meeting, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had talks with his Chinese counterpart and directly raised specific human rights issues, including Tibet. The Government have not in any way failed to be conscious of the sensitivities of the issues raised on the question of Tibet, and we shall continue to be aware of that. We shall pursue the matter vigorously, but in the context of a framework of dialogue. In order to be effective, we must first be listened to, and for that we must have an ear that is receptive. That is what we are trying very hard to establish. A number of practical programmes have been undertaken with the Chinese that demonstrate the reality of what we are trying to do.
§ Lord MoynihanMy Lords, can the Minister tell the House how often the by-law that forbids demonstrations in the Royal Parks has been invoked during previous state visits? When did the necessary consultation take place with the police on such an important decision affecting peaceful campaigners during the recent state visit?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I cannot answer the first part of the noble Lord's question in relation to the Royal Parks, and I shall endeavour to contact him as regards that matter. In every other respect, I can respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord. There was no difference in the procedure and protocol used in the preparations for the most recent visit by President Jiang from those used for every other state visit. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, nothing differed on that occasion.
§ Baroness Williams of CrosbyMy Lords, I recognise that the Government have done considerable and challenging things for human rights. Indeed, the noble Baroness did not even refer to our involvement in Kosovo and East Timor which was very much to do with supporting human rights. However, will she consider two other points? First, occasionally speaking publicly rather than privately can be part of a dialogue, as President Clinton's speech in Beijing indicated. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might think about that. Secondly, will she consider the idea of pursuing the issue of human rights with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which in many cases is an excellent route to reach the Government of China and which is much more open to discussion with other countries than are the formal Government of that country?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her supportive comments. I shall certainly take her recommendation very seriously into account. As I said earlier, Her Majesty's Government have done many practical things in relation to the dialogue. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor himself went to China and signed a memorandum of understanding on future co-operation with the Minister of Justice there. We have 385 been looking at practical programmes in terms of the judiciary, the rule of law, students and so on—many matters that will demonstrate not just now but in the future the importance of respecting human rights in China. We are pursuing those important, practical, on the ground achievements with rigour; and, if I may say so, with a great deal of vigour and energy.