HL Deb 17 December 2003 vol 655 cc1247-56

8.53 p.m.

Baroness Crawley

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the importance to the UK and the EU of stability in the Middle East has rarely been more apparent or acute. Today, we have an opportunity to take an important step in promoting that stability. The association agreements between the EU and Lebanon and the EU and Algeria aim to promote economic and social development in Lebanon and Algeria. They create a partnership underpinned by an ongoing, wide-ranging dialogue and cemented through increased trade liberalisation. They envisage co-operation on a spectrum of issues of mutual concern, ranging from tourism to terrorism, from immigration to investment.

The agreements support UK interests in a variety of ways. They will continue to encourage economic and political reform in Algeria and Lebanon, providing a key plank in the UK's policy to promote reform across the Arab world. They create opportunities for increased UK exports through the progressive reduction of Lebanese and Algerian tariffs on EU industrial products and through increased agricultural liberalisation. That dovetails with our wider aim of promoting global trade liberalisation and economic integration. Equally importantly, the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and human rights.

The two agreements form part of a broader relationship between the EU and the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, known as the Euro-Med partnership. This chapter in EU-Mediterranean relations was opened at Barcelona in 1995 and continues to grow and develop. Its over-arching goal is to ensure peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean region. To that end, it aims to create a Euro-Med free trade area by 2010. Combining an enlarged EU of 25 with our Mediterranean partners will create one of the world's largest trading blocs.

Association agreements are the main instrument for achieving that target. Agreements similar to the one before the House today have already been signed with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt. All except Egypt are in force. An interim agreement with the Palestinian Authority has been agreed and is in force. An agreement with Syria is being negotiated.

Lebanon and Algeria share the UK and EU aims of promoting regional stability and prosperity through dialogue, co-operation and trade. The EU-Algeria association agreement was signed on 27th April 2002; and the EU-Lebanon association agreement was signed on 17th June 2002. An interim agreement with Lebanon covering trade is in force, but, until the agreements have been ratified by all parties, Algeria and Lebanon will not enjoy all the benefits.

These are important agreements, supporting key long-term UK and EU objectives. I recommend their ratification.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing and explaining the orders. As she said, they are important agreements.

We broadly welcome the agreement with Algeria. We are strongly in favour of trade liberalisation. Regrettably, Algeria has suffered greatly in the past few years, and we believe that freer trade will help to provide it with the prosperity that its population urgently deserves and needs. Similarly, co-operation on matters of illegal immigration and counter-terrorism will undoubtedly be of great value to all signatories and we welcome that.

Noble Lords who have read the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights this year will know that at least 100,000 civilians have died in the decade of insurgency by Islamic armed groups in Algeria. Despite an amnesty, two armed groups are still active. The conflict continues to claim around 100 lives a month. As well as terrorist violence, there are numerous allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces and state-armed militias, including enforced disappearances—involving an estimated 4,000 people—and torture. Amnesty International, in the FCO report, argues that, although the rate of human rights abuses has fallen in the past few years, it remains high. Notably, UN monitors have not received the assistance that they might have expected.

We understand that the Algerian Government were faced with what was, in effect, a civil war. That presented them with difficult problems. Are Her Majesty's Government confident that the framework for political dialogue will address those pressing problems? How regular will the political dialogue be? How soon will it start after the order comes into force? What monitoring mechanisms are in place? We would like to be reassured that this order will be used to address those concerns on human rights. By improving human rights, the problems of illegal immigration and terrorism will also be improved.

The case of the Lebanon order is similar. We welcome the agreement, particularly supporting the provisions on trade liberalisation, co-operation on illegal immigration and the proposed political dialogue. However, I note with concern that there is no provision for co-operation on anti-terrorism. Could the noble Baroness comment on that? What effort has been made to create such a provision? If any effort was made, why was it without success? The Minister in the other place said that, if the situation becomes so bad", the provision of the agreement to both countries will be suspended if necessary. Could the noble Baroness explain exactly what criteria the Government will use to decide if it is "too bad"?

We have serious concerns about human rights in Lebanon, including political arrests and violence against women. Does the noble Baroness consider that the framework addressing those issues is satisfactory? Similarly, we have concerns regarding terrorism, especially in the light of frequent exchanges of fire on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I would welcome any enlightenment that the noble Baroness can give the House on that.

The Lebanon is a society riven by war and suffering over the past few years, but it was once a hugely successful country. I hope that both agreements will help both countries to move forward and to rebuild what they have lost. We support the orders and hope that our concerns will be addressed.

9.1 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, we, too, support these orders. But, as on the previous occasion—12th May— when we discussed EU association agreements, I wish to speak only about the standard human rights clause, which is to be found in all these agreements following the Commission's 1995 communication, On the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights and Agreements between the Community and Third Countries.

On that occasion in May, we spoke about Chile and Egypt. In both those countries, one could say that human rights is improving. It is rather doubtful whether the same could be said of Algeria. In July 2002, I had the honour of presenting a petition to the Algerian Government, at their embassy in London on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Algerian independence, calling for an inquiry into the 4,000 plus "disappearances" since the state of emergency was introduced 11 years ago.

President Bouteflika announced what is described as an "ad hoc mechanism" for looking into the disappearances, but it appears to fall short of the demand that has been made for a general inquiry with the necessary resources to back it. As the noble Lord said, the UN Working Group on Disappearances originally asked to visit the country in August 2000, but is still waiting for a response to that request.

In a letter to me dated 28th June 2002, the Minister, Mike O'Brien, said that during a visit to Algiers, the EU Troika had pressed the Algerian authorities for a response to the list of the "disappeared", which had been sent by the presidency in April 2001 and raised again at the political dialogue between Algeria and the EU in December 2001. He continued: Now that the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria has been signed, the EU Commission will be in a position to closely monitor adherence to the human rights principles laid out in the text of the Association Agreement". With that in mind, could the Minister tell us whether a response has yet been received to that list which was presented two-and-a-half years ago?

The noble Lord has reminded us that since the emergency began 11 years ago an estimated 100,000 people have been killed. Although there has been some improvement, still some 60 people are dying every month as a result of violence by the armed groups, the security forces and the state-armed militias. Yet the requests which have been made repeatedly by the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial Executions—going back, I think, in one case, to 1994—have been ignored. This despite assurances given by Prime Minister Benflis to a delegation of Members of your Lordships' House who visited Algeria in September 2002 that UN rapporteurs would be welcome.

On 18th March 2002, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told me in a Written Answer that: We continue to urge the Algerian Government to comply fully with its obligations under international law on the investigation of human rights abuses, including requests to visit by UN Special Rapporteurs".—[Official Report, 18/3/03; cols. WA 115–16.] I have suggested from time to time that it would be useful if, before every session of the UN Human Rights Commission, a list could be published of the outstanding requests by the UN Special Procedures giving the date on which each request was first made and on which it was renewed. I have also suggested that thematic rapporteurs should make a point of submitting written reports if the countries concerned fail to issue invitations, so that at least their omission would attract some penalty in terms of naming and shaming.

On the facts, the influence of Europe has not been very effective and it would be useful to know whether the Minister thinks that the association agreement will make any difference. I wonder why the Algerians should pay any more attention to their obligations under the standard human rights clause in the agreement when for years they have ignored the pleas of the United Kingdom, the European Union and the Human Rights Commission.

Perhaps the Minister will say, as Bill Rammell, the Minister in another place, said in response to a question on 11th December, that an association council established under this agreement would be able to examine any major issues that arise, including human rights. But since the council has no teeth, it is not clear why the Government think that it is likely to produce the improvements that we have been demanding in vain in all other forums. The Algerians might even refuse to attend meetings of the association council, as have the Tunisians, in spite of the fact that their agreement has been in force for two years; and that without attracting any penalty.

In the Commission's document of September 2000 entitled Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process, it recognised that there had not been a sufficiently frank and serious dialogue on human rights and that EU human rights policies in the Mediterranean region lacked consistency. It considered that co-operation on respect for human rights and democracy, good governance and the rule of law should be enhanced. Out of that I understand there have emerged proposals for what are call "Etats de Lieu" reports covering these issues and leading to action plans for each of the partner states. I am not sure whether these mechanisms are yet in force; in the communiqué on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers held in Naples at the beginning of this month, there was a reference under the heading "Human Rights and Democracy" to, joint action plans … to implement the commitments which the partners have agreed to", but nothing specific about the Etats de Lieu reports, which must be an essential preparation for those plans. If, for instance, Algeria disclaims any responsibility for the human rights abuses which continue to take place within its jurisdiction, it would follow that an action plan would not have to include any "national regulation and legislation" to deal with those abuses.

If, on the other hand, there is a serious commitment to a joint examination of alleged human rights abuses, then we very much welcome this as a significant advance. It means, presumably, that the Commission would send experts to Algeria to examine reports of human rights abuses with the Algerian authorities, and that for this purpose the joint teams would have to be given free access to places as well as the power to call for papers and summon witnesses. The very possibility of such inquiries might have an immediate and salutary effect on the perpetrators of human rights abuses.

Neither Algeria nor Lebanon is included in a list of countries to which a special chapter is devoted in the FCO's annual human rights report, although Lebanon is mentioned as the host country of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Lebanon and the Arab World, to which the UK gave a small amount in the year under review. The bilateral assistance for human rights in Lebanon, and any EU funding through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights or through MEDA are independent of the association agreements, as I hope the Minister will confirm.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both recently expressed concern about the harassment of human rights defenders in Lebanon, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, including Samira Trad and Muhammed Mugraby, both of whom suffered arbitrary detention. The government there, unlike Algeria, appointed a commission of inquiry into the thousands of disappearances that occurred during the civil war which ended in 1990, but the findings, which were submitted in February 2001, have never been published.

The noble Lord also mentioned that violence against women is a problem in Lebanon. Amnesty International states that the amendments which are proposed to the penal code would make that situation worse. It states that freedom of expression, which is already constrained, would suffer additional limitations if the amendments go through its Parliament. The arrest of commercial television station owner Tahsin Khayat on 5th December on the orders of a military prosecutor is an ominous sign, and there were arrests is September, also by the military prosecutor, of two journalists associated with a gay website.

The treatment of thousands of Palestinian refugees in refugee camps is also discriminatory and the European Parliament, in the resolution it passed accompanying its consent to this agreement in October, called on the Lebanese Government to ratify the refugee convention.

Does the Minister honestly believe that any of these problems will be solved by the association agreement or even, in the case of amendments to the penal code that are unfriendly to human rights, will be saved from getting any worse? I cannot imagine why the Lebanese authorities would be susceptible to persuasion by high-level political dialogue when up until now they have been impervious to representations that were not adorned with an association agreement label.

The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, pointed out on the previous occasion that if a state fails to meet its obligations the EU can take what are called "appropriate measures", including the suspension of the agreement itself. But of course that nuclear option would never be used and the agreement does not provide for a graduated range of lesser penalties which might be appropriate if, after a period to be decided, there has not been any improvement in the records of these countries.

Of course it is easier for the EU to have a standard clause which it inserts in every association agreement. That may give the bureaucrats a warm glow of satisfaction imagining that they have done something for human rights, but if experience shows that there is no added value in the clause and that any improvements which take place in the partner countries are the result of other procedures, we should review the whole process and see if Europe can design a mechanism for the future that would really work.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on the enormous enthusiasm with which she introduced these orders. One got the impression that they were perhaps the best possible agreements that had been negotiated in the past 10 years.

However, one major serious criticism can be levelled at them. I shall try to explain it. Article 2 of these and all previous EU association agreements states: Relations … shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles". These are said to be an essential element of the agreements. This is fine. But, alas, there is no mechanism to ensure compliance with Article 2 and so the words remain empty and rhetorical.

Detailed mechanisms are needed providing, for example, for regular monitoring of what happens and for close liaison, as has been mentioned, with the UN special rapporteurs on individual countries and on specific kinds of breaches of human rights. If it can be done, this should lead to specific recommendations for improvement. We also need monitoring of whether human rights defenders are in practice free to act, and compliance on human rights should be a distinct agenda item for the regular meetings of the associations councils. Will the Government take up these points with the European Union?

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised very important points about reports and action plans. As I understand it, these are not provided for in the text of the agreements. In this process, will the Government study carefully the resolutions of the European Parliament concerning these two agreements? The first was Resolution P5 TA-Prov (2002), of 10th January 2003, I think, regarding Lebanon. The second resolution was B5-0489/2002 of 10th October 2002. Both resolutions call for mechanisms of implementation for human rights, and mention many of the points to which I have referred.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their important and interesting comments in this debate. I thank them for their constructive overall comments about these agreements. I have been asked several times by noble Lords whether I think these agreements can be effective in challenging issues of human rights abuse in particular. It is vital that the relationship between the European Union and Algeria and Lebanon is strengthened so that we can move down the path of strengthening our resolve to ensure that human rights abuses are reduced and eliminated. This will require serious commitment from the European Union and the UK.

Several questions have been raised; I shall do my best to answer them all. If I miss any. I will happily ensure that they are answered in writing. I was asked by many noble Lords about human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me about Algeria in particular. I am sure he knows that the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and other issues. I can assure the noble Lord that the human rights issue will be very much a part of that dialogue, just as it is under the other association agreements to which I referred in my opening remarks.

In addition, the European Union can take the appropriate measures to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, if thought fit, including suspending the provisions in the agreement with Algeria and Lebanon. This was referred to as a nuclear option. However, it is a very serious provision—it is in the agreement, and that suspension could take place if it was considered that Algeria and Lebanon were failing to meet their obligations under the agreement, such as those regarding respect for fundamental human rights. That is clearly stated in Article 2 of the association agreements.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the EU-Lebanon association agreement as far as covering counter-terrorism is concerned. Co-operation on counter-terrorism is covered by a separate exchange of letters between the EU and Lebanon which enters into force at the same time as the agreement. The focus is on sharing information and experiences about countering and preventing terrorism and undertaking joint research on methods of prevention.

In thanking the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, for their contributions, may I say that we envisage serious monitoring of the human rights situation in both agreements? Under Articles 92 to 95 of the agreements, an association council will be established which shall meet at ministerial level once a year and examine any major issue arising within the framework of the agreement. An association committee of senior officials will also meet during the year. Article 2 states that human rights shall constitute an essential element of the agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that was given in a reply recently in another place. Association agreements will make a difference.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, will the Minister deal with the point that I made about the association agreement with Tunisia, whereby the association council did not meet because the Tunisians declined to come? Short of withdrawing from the agreement, what penalties are available to the Commission if some breach occurs that does not warrant a total withdrawal from the agreement? What lesser penalties are provided?

Lord Hylton

My Lords, surely we need some kind of halfway house between total suspension of the agreement and nothing being done. The Minister mentioned a committee, but will it have any teeth?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I shall endeavour to write to both noble Lords on the details, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the details of the Tunisia association agreement, and what happens as a result of the action that took place in Tunisia. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that these are face-to-face ministerial meetings; they are serious meetings with serious players, and a forum for frank discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about disappeared persons. The Algerian ministry of foreign affairs has responded to some of the cases raised, but only limited information has been forthcoming. In October 1998, at a meeting with the EU troika, the Algerian Foreign Minister undertook to examine individual human rights cases submitted by the EU. Following that, Amnesty International approached the Foreign Office and asked us to submit four cases of disappearance via the presidency. In October 1999, the UK submitted three more cases. A new presidency list was submitted at the ministerial troika in 2001, and the UK continues to raise the cases bilaterally and through the EU, including the points raised by Mike O'Brien during his visit this year.

I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with information, if we have more of it, on the situation of violence against women. I shall also write to the noble Lord, Lord Astorof Hever, as he asked first about that particular aspect of human rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the Commission communication on democratisation, human rights and the national plan. The Commission released a communication on human rights and democratisation in May 2003, which sets out proposals to encourage the improvement and promotion of human rights in the Euro-Mediterranean countries Proposals include the provision of technical assistance to third countries, making community funding to third countries conditional on their respect of human rights, as well as drawing up national action plans with benchmarks on human rights. We very much welcome the Commission's communication as an important step to enhance dialogue between the EU and third countries on human rights. Full details of the European Commission's communication can be found at www.europa.eu.int. I shall speak to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that, if he wishes to again.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, discussed torture. We shall undertake to encourage the investigation of all allegations of torture and shall call for action against anyone found to have committed such a crime or violated other international human rights standards.

In closing, these are important and serious agreements which can improve human rights in the relevant third countries, supporting key long-term UK, EU, Algerian and Lebanese objectives. The UK and the EU must continue to promote closer ties within and between the different regions of the world. I am sure noble Lords would agree that no region is more important than the Middle East. These agreements provide the sort of wide-ranging, concrete measures needed to underpin a relationship that will foster stability, prosperity and understanding. I commend the orders to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.