Gulf States: Trade and Human Rights

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to safeguard human rights in their proposed trade agreement with Gulf states.

My Lords, the UK is a leading advocate for human rights around the world. We remain committed to the promotion of human rights. This Government are in negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. An FTA such as this one with the GCC can increase UK influence and help us have open conversations with partners on a range of issues, including human rights. Where necessary, the UK will draw on our full range of tools and levers, including our independent global human rights sanctions regime, to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously, there is some variation among the six countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council in their attitude to human rights, but it is widely recognised that there are major failures in the areas of migrant labour, the position of women, LGBTQ people, freedom of expression, and access to justice. We understand that there will be some mention of human rights in this proposed trade deal, but would it not be much more effective if it was made legally binding? Surely we should not go for a good trade deal —which of course is very beneficial in itself—at the expense of recognition of human rights by the countries with which we are trading.

Free trade agreements such as this are hugely beneficial to both economies, and I do not think that is at the cost of things such as human rights. It is really important that we all hold dear to us our own standards and become huge ambassadors and advocates for those standards around the world.

Where you are best able effect change is by having standards such as labour provisioning and against forced labour, and where you are able to articulate those within free trade agreements, you should really consider and use those opportunities to do that. When it comes to much broader policies about how you set out and articulate much wider, free-ranging ambitions, I do not necessarily see that those free trade agreements are always the place to do that. Instead, those are conversations that are being had between organisations such as the FCDO and direct counterparts within each of these countries, to work with them collaboratively and co-operatively, to share best practice, to help and support and to raise their ambitions. I do not think this is something that you can simply document as an ambition on a piece of paper and put it away in a cupboard for years and years until it is renegotiated; it is the consequence of consistent and live ongoing conversations.

My Lords, I do not understand the answer that the Minister has just given, because when Labour was in opposition, this House, in the ping-pong on the Trade Bill, insisted on a Labour amendment—which these Benches supported wholeheartedly—that every trade agreement would have a human rights chapter. So have the Government have done a really regrettable U-turn on human rights and trade agreements or has the human rights scenario in the Gulf improved so much that the Labour Government do not think it is warranted?

I do not believe that is what I said. What we are seeing is a combination of understanding that human rights are complex and broad. It is a much broader range of things: modern slavery and thinking about our labour standards, cultural things, same-sex marriages and how we think about women in the workplace. It is broad and far-reaching. Things such as labour standards can be clearly articulated and clarified in agreements such as this, but there are broader aspects that are a consequence of much wider-ranging conversations, and which happen as an ongoing conversation. Yes, there are places and tactical specifics where free trade agreements stand as an opportunity, but there are also much broader, more encompassing conversations which happen collaboratively.

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I actually agree with the Minister on the importance of FTAs. Can she confirm that the Government will continue to focus on the strategic dialogues that the previous Government initiated, where human rights were a key pillar of our discussions and co-operation? In doing that with our Gulf partners, we accentuated the positive; for example, in countries such as Bahrain, major strides were made on alternative sentencing and workers’ rights. We have seen—in an area close to my heart: the freedom of religion or belief and the initiation of the FoRB envoy role—great strides not only in Bahrain but in the UAE and other parts of the Gulf. While I accept that we need to move forward on human rights, I note that something I always did, as the Human Rights Minister for seven years, was to reflect on our own journey of human rights. Before we preach to others, we need to learn from our journey, share those lessons and work constructively.

I thank the noble Lord for his agreement. The key point is that there is never an end state; the work here is never done. We are continuously building on our standards, sharing best practices and learning from what other countries are doing. One thing is clear: we really value our standards on human rights, and we will never compromise on those for any free trade agreement.

My Lords, I take my noble friend the Minister back to her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think I heard her say that, while the breadth of human rights is considerable, there is a place in a free trade agreement for specific, relevant, binding obligations; for example, on labour standards, which might cover third-country workers.

First, there is no signed agreement with the GCC yet; it is under continuous negotiation. However, one of the opportunities we have is to reaffirm what standards a country should have and how it can rearticulate them within the terms of a free trade agreement. Then there are other aspects: consider the Modern Slavery Act here in the UK, which requires any business, anywhere in the world, trading with the UK to comply with efforts towards transparency around its supply chain, to identify forced labour and to eradicate that wherever possible. Where we have opportunities to expand those trading relationships, such as with this free trade agreement, we will only increase the number of businesses that will then be bound by those standards of transparency.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. Will she confirm that trade agreements are about trade? They are about the removal of barriers and other obstacles to the free flow of commerce. All the other things that we are hearing about—women’s rights, freedom of expression and workers’ rights—are terribly important, but they do not belong as a coda in a trade agreement; they are matters to be addressed in their own terms. Here is a terrific opportunity for us to increase the value of our trade by getting on for £2 billion with these old allies of ours, the former Trucial States and other Gulf monarchies. Is that not good for us, good for them and —in a world that is increasingly moving to protectionism —good for everybody else as well?

Trade is the consequence of a relationship: working with someone across the table with whom you have a shared ambition to work together. That drives both economic benefit and influence, and I do not believe that one ever comes at the cost of the other.

My Lords, over £42 million of UK government spending from 2020 on the Gulf strategy fund has failed to demonstrably improve many of the human rights abuses detailed by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and Human Rights Watch across the Gulf states. I note that this free trade agreement lacks robust and enforceable human rights provisions. Will the Minister explain how this combined approach helps uphold the UK’s commitments to human rights in this region?

What I am hearing from the noble Lord is that our work here is not yet done. It is a long way from being done, and it is a constantly evolving situation where all of us are raising our own standards—here in the UK but in other countries as well. Where we are able to work together to share ideas, continuously, in every conversation, and to articulate the benefits that those high standards have to our society, where we have trade agreements, that only increases the number of opportunities to articulate and continue to drive that change. I accept that we still have a long way to go and there is still much we could be doing.

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that in the course of these trade negotiations with the Gulf states the Government will take steps to ensure that the UK’s commitment to a free and independent press is in no way compromised—that includes the press’s ability to report on human rights abuses?

I confirm that we hold our standards around human rights, and value our press, incredibly dearly and we would not do anything in a free trade agreement that takes away or dilutes any of those assets that we hold dear within the UK.