Foreign Affairs Committee
Monday 26th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 days, 10 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:30
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
Welcome to today's Foreign Affairs Committee session. Today we are hearing from the Right Honorable Alistair Burt, the government's first ever envoy for complex consular detentions. This is a role that this committee and our predecessor committee called for, in fact, probably be fair to say, campaigned for. And so we're really pleased to see you today. And for those watching this session, I think I should make it clear that the witness is not going to be able to discuss individual cases in any in any depth during this session. Instead, we're going to be asking more general questions about the newly created role, what its remit is and how it relates to existing government structures for supporting those that are being detained overseas.
So I think if I start really with that, we're we're really pleased to see you today before this committee. And and and we have been calling on several occasions for for this role to be created. And our predecessor committee, which Dan was part of, of both. So we'd like you really to, if you can set out what you see your new role to be. And, and I think particularly with reference to the terms of reference, we wanted to really know how independent you were, how much you had to be directed by the Foreign Secretary, how much discretion you had, and so on.
So I think if I start really with that, we're we're really pleased to see you today before this committee. And and and we have been calling on several occasions for for this role to be created. And our predecessor committee, which Dan was part of, of both. So we'd like you really to, if you can set out what you see your new role to be. And, and I think particularly with reference to the terms of reference, we wanted to really know how independent you were, how much you had to be directed by the Foreign Secretary, how much discretion you had, and so on.
13:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, first of all, it's very nice to see you and to say a warm thank you to the committee, because you did indeed, you and your predecessor, you know, pressed for the role. So this is a great example of parliamentary democracy and government working together. You thought it was necessary. It's incorporated in the last manifesto of the present government. And here we are. But certainly without the inquiries that took place in recent years to look at what had happened in certain cases, talk to those who had been detained and particularly their families, we probably wouldn't be here.
So. So thank you very much. Where we would be, though, would be with extremely hard working consular staff all over the world who deal with thousands of cases, roughly, you know, 25 to 30,000 cases a year. We have some between 9 and 10,000 UK nationals. Dual nationals are detained at any one time. There may be 5000 of those new each year. So it's a considerable caseload handled by the Fcdo and the consular team. And that's relevant because I work through them. This is a role which is not similar, which is not an exact parallel of the United States, where the special envoy for hostage Affairs has a direct executive authority from the president of the United States.
This role, if you if you look at the the remit, which is set out publicly, is very much based within the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office, and it grows out of the consular activity because in actual fact, we have few hostage cases per se. By that I mean those who might be captured by non-state actors and those who are held by a state for state bargaining purposes. We have one clear evidence of that, but there are not many. The majority of cases that I'm dealing with have grown out of consular situations, which have morphed over time into what might be termed arbitrary, wrongful, unfair detention.
And we can talk about talk about those. We do have where there are genuine hostage cases of non-state groups. We have a practice procedure for that with special negotiators and investigators. Criminal kidnaps are handled by the National Crime Agency. So the state covers those. But my role as set out in the remit is particularly to work with the consular team with three. I think clear aims firstly to liaise more closely and effectively with families of those who are detained, because that was one of the areas identified by the committee as being a place where families felt at times they weren't as up to speed with what the government might be doing, and they wanted direct access rather more than was the case.
And this role is designed to help in giving those families a sense of partnership. Our work is not done against families. It's done with them to the extent that we can. And we'll talk about that a little more. Secondly, the role was designed to allow for challenge of the system, and that's where the relationship with the Foreign Secretary and other ministers come. Come in. I'm appointed by the Foreign Secretary, but I'm not employed by the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
So I have an independent role in the.
So. So thank you very much. Where we would be, though, would be with extremely hard working consular staff all over the world who deal with thousands of cases, roughly, you know, 25 to 30,000 cases a year. We have some between 9 and 10,000 UK nationals. Dual nationals are detained at any one time. There may be 5000 of those new each year. So it's a considerable caseload handled by the Fcdo and the consular team. And that's relevant because I work through them. This is a role which is not similar, which is not an exact parallel of the United States, where the special envoy for hostage Affairs has a direct executive authority from the president of the United States.
This role, if you if you look at the the remit, which is set out publicly, is very much based within the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office, and it grows out of the consular activity because in actual fact, we have few hostage cases per se. By that I mean those who might be captured by non-state actors and those who are held by a state for state bargaining purposes. We have one clear evidence of that, but there are not many. The majority of cases that I'm dealing with have grown out of consular situations, which have morphed over time into what might be termed arbitrary, wrongful, unfair detention.
And we can talk about talk about those. We do have where there are genuine hostage cases of non-state groups. We have a practice procedure for that with special negotiators and investigators. Criminal kidnaps are handled by the National Crime Agency. So the state covers those. But my role as set out in the remit is particularly to work with the consular team with three. I think clear aims firstly to liaise more closely and effectively with families of those who are detained, because that was one of the areas identified by the committee as being a place where families felt at times they weren't as up to speed with what the government might be doing, and they wanted direct access rather more than was the case.
And this role is designed to help in giving those families a sense of partnership. Our work is not done against families. It's done with them to the extent that we can. And we'll talk about that a little more. Secondly, the role was designed to allow for challenge of the system, and that's where the relationship with the Foreign Secretary and other ministers come. Come in. I'm appointed by the Foreign Secretary, but I'm not employed by the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
So I have an independent role in the.
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They're not because I have chosen not to be paid. It's my choice. And the reason for that is firstly, it gives me independence from the Foreign Office. There will be times when I will support the Foreign Office's work on a particular case, and may have to explain to the families that actually, I think what the Foreign Office is doing is correct. I don't think there's any more to be done. I don't want anyone to think, well, you would say that, wouldn't you? So I'm independent. Secondly, I was very conscious the Foreign Office was going through quite a heavy reconstruction, and they've lost a number of people having somebody else troll in and ask for a few grand for doing the job I didn't think was quite appropriate.
13:36
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
And I understand the circumstances in relation to yourself. And at the moment, as I understand it, you would be doing this job for 18 months. But part of the challenge I think, is also, you know, whilst whilst the work you're doing is really important, it's also to kind of stress test the model, you know, see if see if this works and what changes need to be done. And, and I would have thought in order for it to be sustainable, it ought to be paid as well.
13:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I may not be advocating my circumstances to my successor. Okay. But, but for my for my own reasons, I wanted I wanted to do it this way. I understand, and I'm perfectly comfortable doing it this way. It's never been an issue and bone of contention between myself and the department or anything. I have no doubt that in future it will be a paid role, and that is a matter for those who step into it in the situation. But let me come back to my point. The envoy is designed to have a challenging role to policy, which is done through the position of the role, nothing to do with remuneration or anything else.
It means I've got the ability to bring the consular teams together, to discuss a case, to ask them to consider everything they may have done, including things that they might have wanted to do but haven't been able to do. To question why I've said to them all, I'm not your line manager. If you've had any ideas you thought were off the wall and didn't want to bring them forward, I'm your cover, come up with them to me and we'll try anything that you think might make a difference. And that's particularly relevant because, as I say, the majority of cases I've got are not new.
They've been going on for a long time. That's why they're complex. That's why they're difficult, and that's why they won't be easy to resolve. So I've got the ability to challenge policy. What I've said to the consular teams is that I think my role is to be able to give options to the Foreign Secretary and to the consular minister, which we can only do if we consider things and put them forward . That may not have been thought of before. In other words, in looking at in looking at a case and looking at, say, the bilateral relationship, it's not my job to define that the bilateral relationship is more important than a particular course of action in relation to a detainee.
That's what the Foreign Secretary to decide. He has got to take the decision on risk taking. What we've got to do is put up ideas to the Foreign Secretary. That may have been different to what's been considered before. That's the degree of challenge, and that's the ability that I've got. It's particularly helped because they've chosen someone with a background who has worked in the consular area before as part of my ministerial duties, obviously knows the figures involved and spent five years as a minister in the Foreign Office. So I've got the background that's necessary to be able to understand the cases and challenge.
So that's my second particular role to challenge, to challenge policy. The third is to work more internationally than we've done. As you'll probably be aware, there is the Canadian Initiative on Arbitrary Detention, which was which has now been signed by 82 different states, including the UK. There's a core group of officials of five states who work together. I've been to Ottawa to talk to them. I've been to Washington to talk to the people involved in their system, their my chief of staff, Martin Gatzke, who's with me. We travelled to Qatar last week for the Doha Security Forum to meet others from different countries who are involved in similar things.
Because of the rise in the number of arbitrary detentions, wrongful unfair detentions over time. So that third role is is there to do the international work. So that's what I've been doing so far, looking at individual cases, meeting with families. I've had a rule that I would meet with families where they wanted. We're all used to asking constituents to come here, sometimes over a long period of time when they'll say, Mr. Burt, this is the 19th time I've been at the House of Commons and nothing has happened. I wanted to be able to say to families, I'll come to you.
Let me come and see where where you are, see where you live and talk to you. So I've done that in a couple of cases, and I've kept in touch with people. And I suppose just, just finally sort of looking over the next few months, we never forget, I never forget that at the end of all this, there's only one measure of success. Usually for families, they want someone back. It's the one thing that is outside the gift and the control of the United Kingdom. We are not detaining people. Other people are. And that's hard sometimes for people to to follow in circumstances.
But I've got to and I do appreciate that for them, it's the only thing that matters. And of course, they want to see success. And secondly, I want to advance the international process because ultimately, it's not looking for colleagues to rally around and support you getting someone out. It's actually preventing this. It's persuading states that do it. This is not the way that will bring them any success. And thirdly, it's to continue to work with the consular teams here to help develop consular practice, which they've been doing since the McGregor review and the cases of the past, to see what changes the teams can make to advance.
It means I've got the ability to bring the consular teams together, to discuss a case, to ask them to consider everything they may have done, including things that they might have wanted to do but haven't been able to do. To question why I've said to them all, I'm not your line manager. If you've had any ideas you thought were off the wall and didn't want to bring them forward, I'm your cover, come up with them to me and we'll try anything that you think might make a difference. And that's particularly relevant because, as I say, the majority of cases I've got are not new.
They've been going on for a long time. That's why they're complex. That's why they're difficult, and that's why they won't be easy to resolve. So I've got the ability to challenge policy. What I've said to the consular teams is that I think my role is to be able to give options to the Foreign Secretary and to the consular minister, which we can only do if we consider things and put them forward . That may not have been thought of before. In other words, in looking at in looking at a case and looking at, say, the bilateral relationship, it's not my job to define that the bilateral relationship is more important than a particular course of action in relation to a detainee.
That's what the Foreign Secretary to decide. He has got to take the decision on risk taking. What we've got to do is put up ideas to the Foreign Secretary. That may have been different to what's been considered before. That's the degree of challenge, and that's the ability that I've got. It's particularly helped because they've chosen someone with a background who has worked in the consular area before as part of my ministerial duties, obviously knows the figures involved and spent five years as a minister in the Foreign Office. So I've got the background that's necessary to be able to understand the cases and challenge.
So that's my second particular role to challenge, to challenge policy. The third is to work more internationally than we've done. As you'll probably be aware, there is the Canadian Initiative on Arbitrary Detention, which was which has now been signed by 82 different states, including the UK. There's a core group of officials of five states who work together. I've been to Ottawa to talk to them. I've been to Washington to talk to the people involved in their system, their my chief of staff, Martin Gatzke, who's with me. We travelled to Qatar last week for the Doha Security Forum to meet others from different countries who are involved in similar things.
Because of the rise in the number of arbitrary detentions, wrongful unfair detentions over time. So that third role is is there to do the international work. So that's what I've been doing so far, looking at individual cases, meeting with families. I've had a rule that I would meet with families where they wanted. We're all used to asking constituents to come here, sometimes over a long period of time when they'll say, Mr. Burt, this is the 19th time I've been at the House of Commons and nothing has happened. I wanted to be able to say to families, I'll come to you.
Let me come and see where where you are, see where you live and talk to you. So I've done that in a couple of cases, and I've kept in touch with people. And I suppose just, just finally sort of looking over the next few months, we never forget, I never forget that at the end of all this, there's only one measure of success. Usually for families, they want someone back. It's the one thing that is outside the gift and the control of the United Kingdom. We are not detaining people. Other people are. And that's hard sometimes for people to to follow in circumstances.
But I've got to and I do appreciate that for them, it's the only thing that matters. And of course, they want to see success. And secondly, I want to advance the international process because ultimately, it's not looking for colleagues to rally around and support you getting someone out. It's actually preventing this. It's persuading states that do it. This is not the way that will bring them any success. And thirdly, it's to continue to work with the consular teams here to help develop consular practice, which they've been doing since the McGregor review and the cases of the past, to see what changes the teams can make to advance.
13:41
13:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The McGregor review grew out of? I think it was 20 2019. Judith McGregor, a former former diplomat, was was tasked with looking at the Foreign Secretary , asked me to look into the policy and handling of complex consular cases. I think it was round about that time, and she did so. And that formed, in a way, part of the discussion which this committee took forward afterwards to it followed the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case, Matthew Hedges It was designed to look at things internally and then from that the wider inquiry of the select committee grew. But my point is that the process of continuous consular development in how they were looking at cases has been going on for some time, so I'm fitting into that process of them looking hard at what they do to see, even after all the hard work they do, there's anything they can do better.
That's where we are at the moment.
That's where we are at the moment.
13:42
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
I mean, this is against also a backdrop of, of being so much easier for Brits to travel all over the world and Brits going independently, and not necessarily with that much support or advice, not going with work, but just going on holiday sort of everywhere. And you can bump into bump into sort of a British citizen and and they can get into all kinds of trouble. I mean, I think that's part of the issue, isn't it? And so consular services have needed to expand.
13:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That's right. The vast majority of cases picked up by the consular teams don't involve the sort of state to state issues that some colleagues will be aware of from the cases that have been discussed. They're the normal things that happen when you go on holiday and something goes a bit wrong. Sometimes citizens have not been terribly wise when they've been abroad. Sometimes they've been duped into things. You can run through the gamut and as you say, you know, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people go abroad from here every year, but about 28,000 of them get into some form of trouble.
And of course, some of it is tragic. People lose their lives abroad. Families. We saw recently over the weekend in accidents. In all those cases, consular teams are involved and are active. So it's not just crimes or anything like that. It's any place where people need support and constant teams to provide it as best they can. Yes.
And of course, some of it is tragic. People lose their lives abroad. Families. We saw recently over the weekend in accidents. In all those cases, consular teams are involved and are active. So it's not just crimes or anything like that. It's any place where people need support and constant teams to provide it as best they can. Yes.
13:44
13:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think I think I probably do report to the Foreign Secretary in that. My pattern of work is I will meet. I open access to them at any time to the consular minister and to the Foreign Secretary. So on any particular case, as this week we will be meeting a family. I will be in on on the meeting tomorrow, and I can see the Foreign Secretary and Consular Minister Doughty at any time. But I think for certainty I should see Stephen Doughty at least once a month. I should see the Foreign Secretary every two months to run over the cases that tend to come up in Parliament, where the Foreign Secretary would be asked to be involved, to raise it at ministerial level.
And in terms of reporting, it's a looser relationship. But but I am accountable to him.
And in terms of reporting, it's a looser relationship. But but I am accountable to him.
13:45
Edward Morello
-
-
Edward Morello
Rather than sort of the the literal reporting, which I take the point of what the point that you're making. But in terms of that, where your where your power and responsibility comes from. that's the source of it. You don't have the same sort of powers as the US special envoy, as you as you mentioned, you're not a representative of the Foreign Office. So where does your authority come from when you're in the room with a counterparty, you know, another nation, do you not, in the way that you've outlined it. Do you not envisage being the person in the room and.
13:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The authority, the ultimate decision makers are the Foreign Secretary in the Prime Minister. They are the people who can decide what policy is in any particular case. I have no I have no elected authority. I have no parliamentary accountability or anything like that. So I cannot change government policy in relation to a case because I have no lockers to do so. But the relationship is. And as as described, the role is designed to allow me to go in more depth into cases than the Foreign Secretary and the consular minister can possibly do. They've got a range of other things to do.
Of course, as we all know, Foreign Secretary covers the consular minister, covers the Middle East. They can't spend as much time I can. And then when I make recommendations, I hope that they'll be followed. And if my powers of persuasion are sufficient, and if the case requires it, the authority then is with the Foreign Secretary who will decide what the policy is. That's the relationship. But my authority derives from government. It's government decisions.
Of course, as we all know, Foreign Secretary covers the consular minister, covers the Middle East. They can't spend as much time I can. And then when I make recommendations, I hope that they'll be followed. And if my powers of persuasion are sufficient, and if the case requires it, the authority then is with the Foreign Secretary who will decide what the policy is. That's the relationship. But my authority derives from government. It's government decisions.
13:46
Edward Morello
-
-
Edward Morello
Isn't there an inherent risk within that, though, that, you know, if if your recommendations are not listened to and you talked in depth about the improving the relationship with the families of those detained, you know, that you that, you know, if if there isn't any deliverable, any results as a result of your appointment, you make all of these recommendations. Policy doesn't change. No one who's detained is released. You know, your authority then with the families is also undermined, let alone your authority with counterparties.
13:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I understand entirely, but firstly, counterparts understand very well . In conversation with our colleagues abroad, a number of things become very clear and they will all say this and you could interview them quite cheerfully. Number one, there's no magic bullet. Number two, every case is unique. Number three, by and large, they all end in a bargain when they've been very long standing and difficult conditions. Number four. Be very careful of how you handle a state that has your citizen, because there are consequences to your actions. And fifthly, all families everywhere want the same thing. And no matter how they demand, it's not within the gift of a national state that's campaigning for a detained individual to to find an immediate or magic formula for release.
So we all face the same thing. So I have no issue in dealing with counterparts about how difficult these cases are. But your point about getting things done, as I said earlier, I think we all we all recognise and work with the sense that in in many of the cases that I'm dealing with, with the consular teams, of course, the only thing that people want is people back. And ultimately that, of course, is what I want. And in three months I'm not able to deliver that. But over time, you're right. That must be one of the things they will see foreign Secretary and Consular minister able to do different things if we can, and if it's ultimately in the interests of the detainee.
And this is, again, a difficult issue that you will have come across. The families may ask for things and want things done that I may consider, and the Fcdo may consider might be potentially harmful to the citizen that's being detained or to others. Now we have got to be free and able to say that to a family. As much as I am able to take a case for the family to to a minister and say, I don't think if we do what the families say will cause any harm to the citizen, and I think maybe we ought to do this, that that's the process.
But also, if you see, if I was in a public situation where I was in the newspapers saying one thing and the government wasn't doing it, I can't see that that's comfortable for any anybody and the people it would give comfort to are those who detain our citizens. So an element of this will be behind the scenes. I can explain the processes to you as I would explain to the public, but there's there's no automatic process where the envoy demands something and something will happen.
So we all face the same thing. So I have no issue in dealing with counterparts about how difficult these cases are. But your point about getting things done, as I said earlier, I think we all we all recognise and work with the sense that in in many of the cases that I'm dealing with, with the consular teams, of course, the only thing that people want is people back. And ultimately that, of course, is what I want. And in three months I'm not able to deliver that. But over time, you're right. That must be one of the things they will see foreign Secretary and Consular minister able to do different things if we can, and if it's ultimately in the interests of the detainee.
And this is, again, a difficult issue that you will have come across. The families may ask for things and want things done that I may consider, and the Fcdo may consider might be potentially harmful to the citizen that's being detained or to others. Now we have got to be free and able to say that to a family. As much as I am able to take a case for the family to to a minister and say, I don't think if we do what the families say will cause any harm to the citizen, and I think maybe we ought to do this, that that's the process.
But also, if you see, if I was in a public situation where I was in the newspapers saying one thing and the government wasn't doing it, I can't see that that's comfortable for any anybody and the people it would give comfort to are those who detain our citizens. So an element of this will be behind the scenes. I can explain the processes to you as I would explain to the public, but there's there's no automatic process where the envoy demands something and something will happen.
13:50
Edward Morello
-
-
Edward Morello
I get that, but the Foreign Affairs Committee might want a process of scrutinising the successfulness of this, this role being created. And what you're describing is a reasonably opaque system where there is only one outcome, which is people are released or they're not. And for us to understand the extent to which you have moved the dial on that versus being unable to shift government policy. I mean, objectively, if I was the government or the Foreign Secretary sitting here and going, well, we've appointed somebody and it's now their fault when somebody's not released. But in reality, they are not heeding the recommendation you're making.
13:51
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
Mike, can I also say just following up on that, I think there's a related question, which is, you know, in your terms of reference, you it does say that with the agreement of the Foreign Secretary, the the envoy has authority to engage foreign governments at senior levels consistent with ministerial direction. And the envoy has no independent authority to conclude, to enter into or conclude agreements. All outcomes requiring formal commitment must be referred for ministerial approval. So I'm confused on that as to whether you can engage foreign governments, whether if there was to be a need for a soft cop, hard cop kind of approach, whether you would play a role in that at all, or whether your role is sort of almost kind of UK facing as opposed to the, the, the, the foreign governments that are causing all this trouble in the first place.
13:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think you will find that the relationship that I have and that the envoy is going to have with ministers , will allow for the best use of the envoy's resources at all times, in that. I have no indication at present that there will be a difficulty in me joining a negotiation or setting up a negotiation if I believe it's in the interests of people that are being held and I can persuade the minister to do so. And I've got clear evidence that that's already the case. So it's it's trying to of course, terms of reference have got to be set down.
But there is a process here that involves all the people who are engaged with with an individual detained. And of course, although ultimately getting somebody back is the most important thing, there are other things in the meantime, there's welfare, there's access, there's all the other things that may have come adrift when someone has been detained for some reason and something has changed, it's it's as I say, it's it's lurched from what was a a proper legal approach where the United Kingdom's position would be to recognise the legal process in another state and only seek access welfare issues.
But something has changed. And it's in those difficult cases that I'm currently involved. But the relationship is from all of us. How do we move it on? And you're absolutely right, it is a cooperative process, but have I got the powers that I need to make all the suggestions that I want? The answer is yes I have. And do I want to use those powers to move cases along when we think it's going to be the best thing? And as I say, in some cases, the Foreign Secretary will not have been as sighted on them as as I am.
And so there will be ready agreement. Let's take the next step. And I've also got a little bit more latitude, I think, than posts abroad. One of the issues that comes up in any discussion, whether it's here or in other places, is the relationship between the detainees interests and the bilateral relationship. And I think, again, in conversation with others around the world, they all recognise that within their foreign services, there's an innate conservatism in posts because of their bilateral relationships. I've got a little bit more latitude and freedom to challenge those and to put those points to the Foreign Secretary.
So it it's hard to set it all out on paper and follow it rigidly. I think part will depend on it will all depend on relationships between the envoy and the team. But remember, it's built on existing relationships, totally devoted to doing the best for the detained citizen.
But there is a process here that involves all the people who are engaged with with an individual detained. And of course, although ultimately getting somebody back is the most important thing, there are other things in the meantime, there's welfare, there's access, there's all the other things that may have come adrift when someone has been detained for some reason and something has changed, it's it's as I say, it's it's lurched from what was a a proper legal approach where the United Kingdom's position would be to recognise the legal process in another state and only seek access welfare issues.
But something has changed. And it's in those difficult cases that I'm currently involved. But the relationship is from all of us. How do we move it on? And you're absolutely right, it is a cooperative process, but have I got the powers that I need to make all the suggestions that I want? The answer is yes I have. And do I want to use those powers to move cases along when we think it's going to be the best thing? And as I say, in some cases, the Foreign Secretary will not have been as sighted on them as as I am.
And so there will be ready agreement. Let's take the next step. And I've also got a little bit more latitude, I think, than posts abroad. One of the issues that comes up in any discussion, whether it's here or in other places, is the relationship between the detainees interests and the bilateral relationship. And I think, again, in conversation with others around the world, they all recognise that within their foreign services, there's an innate conservatism in posts because of their bilateral relationships. I've got a little bit more latitude and freedom to challenge those and to put those points to the Foreign Secretary.
So it it's hard to set it all out on paper and follow it rigidly. I think part will depend on it will all depend on relationships between the envoy and the team. But remember, it's built on existing relationships, totally devoted to doing the best for the detained citizen.
13:54
13:54
Alex Ballinger
-
-
Alex Ballinger
Thank you. Chair. I'm interested that you said your your big priority, of course, was getting a result for the families. But also a very important part of your job is prevention preventing this happening. It feels to me they might be in tension somewhat because a lot of the a lot of the deals end up with bargains that might incentivise the states that we're working with to do this again in the future. So I was just wondering your thought process, Alastair, how, how you would how you would deal with those trade offs in your new role?
13:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The advice I have from from talking to colleagues around the world is it's all case by case. The United Kingdom does not pay ransoms and we will not pay ransoms. There are certain clear guidelines that UK foreign policy has already made clear. There is no suggestion that the envoy will be given any latitude to be in breach of these. But there will be. In some cases it becomes clear over time, particularly in a state to state hostage case, that a state may be after something. And. And let's look back at Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case. And again, as this committee knows from evidence that I gave it, over a period of time, I identified that a repayment of the IMF debt would be likely to be beneficial in the circumstances.
It wasn't a ransom. It was a debt which the United Kingdom owed, which had been internationally arbitrated upon against the United Kingdom. And I thought that this would be something that would be of assistance, no connection with Nazanin whatsoever. But it was something that it became clear in my conversations that Iran was looking for. Now, there will be other circumstances when it becomes clear something else is being sought. And the judgment is, as you rightly say, in, in, in finding the bargain. Is it something that puts other UK citizens at risk? And this is a complex issue.
If you speak to Roger Carstens, who is the the the doyen of the the American system, the original speaker, special envoy, a special presidential envoy. He's quite straightforward that, you know, in most cases, trying to do a deal on one individual doesn't set up a conveyor belt. In some places, if UK citizens are traveling in areas that are dangerous, where travel advice has been. Don't go. If UK citizens are still there, there is always a risk that they will be picked up the the and used for the wrong purposes. But the dilemma is, if you have a situation to get somebody out, do you not act upon that because of a potential risk?
If there's a clear risk to others, there's no question like a ransom payment, we can't do that. But if there may be other opportunities for bargains, are you not doing your best for the citizen? But then, as I said in my earlier statement, that's not what we want to be doing. We want to be acting with other states to say, this is not the practice anyone should be following, and we have to consider how we can act collectively with sanctions and other things to prevent states from feeling this is anything that they can possibly consider.
I think that's a harder task, but it's really essential to to to do this.
It wasn't a ransom. It was a debt which the United Kingdom owed, which had been internationally arbitrated upon against the United Kingdom. And I thought that this would be something that would be of assistance, no connection with Nazanin whatsoever. But it was something that it became clear in my conversations that Iran was looking for. Now, there will be other circumstances when it becomes clear something else is being sought. And the judgment is, as you rightly say, in, in, in finding the bargain. Is it something that puts other UK citizens at risk? And this is a complex issue.
If you speak to Roger Carstens, who is the the the doyen of the the American system, the original speaker, special envoy, a special presidential envoy. He's quite straightforward that, you know, in most cases, trying to do a deal on one individual doesn't set up a conveyor belt. In some places, if UK citizens are traveling in areas that are dangerous, where travel advice has been. Don't go. If UK citizens are still there, there is always a risk that they will be picked up the the and used for the wrong purposes. But the dilemma is, if you have a situation to get somebody out, do you not act upon that because of a potential risk?
If there's a clear risk to others, there's no question like a ransom payment, we can't do that. But if there may be other opportunities for bargains, are you not doing your best for the citizen? But then, as I said in my earlier statement, that's not what we want to be doing. We want to be acting with other states to say, this is not the practice anyone should be following, and we have to consider how we can act collectively with sanctions and other things to prevent states from feeling this is anything that they can possibly consider.
I think that's a harder task, but it's really essential to to to do this.
13:58
13:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The short answer to that is yes. My team is the whole of the consular team. I have access to all of them. Sabiha in the States they have about 3035 people. But what they do is they take over a case. So it would mean in the Foreign Office duplicating the consular team and putting them particularly around an envoy. But the majority of cases they're dealing with are genuine hostage cases, which which we're not dealing with. That's why my team is the consular team, because those are the people I'm working with. I have no issue and no difficulty in getting access to the consular team, getting information from them, both at post and at the Foreign Office.
There's no issue there. I have access to the minister, to the Foreign Secretary and ultimately to the Prime Minister in cases where he will be actively involved. There's no question of my lack of access. Resource is is fine. We're in the process of building up the office in practical terms, to make sure that Martin has sufficient admin support to to help him. And that will grow in time as the caseload probably expands. And there's no issue on on budget yet, but I may have to have some conversation. It depends how often I'm asked to go places, and that will depend on how some of the the conversations go and some of the negotiations go.
If I am called into active negotiations, naturally, there's a cost. I've been given no sense whatsoever that there would be a restriction on any of that sort of work.
There's no issue there. I have access to the minister, to the Foreign Secretary and ultimately to the Prime Minister in cases where he will be actively involved. There's no question of my lack of access. Resource is is fine. We're in the process of building up the office in practical terms, to make sure that Martin has sufficient admin support to to help him. And that will grow in time as the caseload probably expands. And there's no issue on on budget yet, but I may have to have some conversation. It depends how often I'm asked to go places, and that will depend on how some of the the conversations go and some of the negotiations go.
If I am called into active negotiations, naturally, there's a cost. I've been given no sense whatsoever that there would be a restriction on any of that sort of work.
14:00
14:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Cases, the the head of consular services. And I see, you know, almost on a daily basis, but Martin will be added to in terms of administrative support and also in terms of quality support, too, because it's important that other people than me in the team think through next steps, both in terms of international cooperation on individual cases. It can't all be left to to the two of us. And I've got to have some some expertise beyond the consular teams in order to add to the thought processes there.
So that's building up.
So that's building up.
14:01
14:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I've made it clear to the consular teams that I will see any MP who asks to see me, and that's because of my background with all of you. I wouldn't you wouldn't want me to turn you down and say, I'm not going to take the case. I'll speak to any MP because that MP has got to go back to his or her constituent and say, I've seen the envoy. The envoy assures me that at present, the consular team handling this, that's the best thing that can be done. But he is aware of the case. There'll be other circumstances where I'm introduced to something new and.
Well, we'll have a look at that. And. But I will see all the MPs. They can either contact me through the Fcdo and I'm available on email, but there is a number for MPs to access, which you're probably aware of. I'm not able to give it publicly, but there is a number that MPs can call for consular assistance that I hope is available to all MPs, and they should have no hesitation in using it getting through to the consular team. But any MP who who has a constituent who says, I'd like you to talk to Alastair Bird about this, I will certainly do so.
Well, we'll have a look at that. And. But I will see all the MPs. They can either contact me through the Fcdo and I'm available on email, but there is a number for MPs to access, which you're probably aware of. I'm not able to give it publicly, but there is a number that MPs can call for consular assistance that I hope is available to all MPs, and they should have no hesitation in using it getting through to the consular team. But any MP who who has a constituent who says, I'd like you to talk to Alastair Bird about this, I will certainly do so.
14:02
14:03
14:03
Alex Ballinger
-
-
Alex Ballinger
Yes. Security clearances Alastair. It says in your terms of reference. Yeah. The envoy should have the necessary security clearances. You'll be aware the committee has had long debates with other appointments on this. Could you just, for the avoidance of doubt, say that you've gone through the security clearances before your appointment was announced?
14:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Right. Because at the time it was being considered, all this was in the background. No, I have been and I've also been strapped, cleared. So I've had both, both clearances. And it was very funny going through the strap clearances. It's a bit you're a minister. Did you not have this? And I said, no, we didn't. So I've been through it. I've been through a deeper screening procedure than I've ever been through before. But the committee can be assured it has been done and it was done. It was done before the appointment. There was no question of that.
14:03
14:03
14:03
Dan Carden
-
-
Dan Carden
Thank you chair. Congratulations, Alastair, on your appointment many years ago, I used to shadow you as. a minister and I'm delighted for you taking up a role that is clearly so passionate about. You set out in. You've covered a lot of ground. I think of how you see the role performing and how it's different to the role of the special envoy in the United States. I wonder, are there other similar roles around the world that you've been looking at and thinking about how they're either successful or not about you? Just give us a few thoughts.
14:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, I think you'll find the The Five Eyes core team, which gravitated around the Canadians. I mentioned the Canadians published their initiative on arbitrary detention in 2021, and they set out, by definition of arbitrary detention, I won't read it. You'll find it. But essentially it's a process whereby. A detaining state seeks state advantage in holding a hostage from the national state of the of the detainee. So it's quite specific in that sense. And that doesn't actually cover most of the cases I'm I'm dealing with. So the Canadians took a lead. There is a core group, Five eyes group that met and I met with in Ottawa recently, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and ourselves.
I have met the heads of all those. The Canadians have a particular individual designated. The Australians do both with them. The Americans have spear and New Zealand was represented by by another senior figure, so I have met them all. And then when I was in in Doha last week, I met 1 or 2 involved in national security in, in Gulf states as well. So there is there is a network of people who, who are dealing with this. And their remit is quite wide. non-State hostage taking hasn't gone away. There are particular groups at risk journalists, humanitarian workers.
I met with IRGC, they have a special representative who deals with their people, who are who are taking. They are they are, you know, particularly at risk at the moment. And the numbers have been the numbers have been increasing in relation to that. The . There are people who have been inveigled into crimes. We have a worry about those who are encouraged to take drugs into places. I think there's some international work to be done. There are particularly vulnerable groups who are encouraged to take drugs by international gangs. Persuaded that you're too young, you're too old, it you won't suffer any consequences and all that.
So there's that. So you have a range of, you know, both criminal potential hostage cases. But the rise in state hostage taking has been noticed. I think the Americans suffer more than most in relation to this. But that's what's increased international interest in this and how things can be tackled collectively. So I'm building and building that up. I'm very keen. We are very keen on hosting the core group in 2027 in the United Kingdom, because it will give it greater prominence. We would obviously want high level representation at such a meeting, but we think we'd like to host it and that will add to the the visibility of the United Kingdom being extremely concerned about such a practice.
I have met the heads of all those. The Canadians have a particular individual designated. The Australians do both with them. The Americans have spear and New Zealand was represented by by another senior figure, so I have met them all. And then when I was in in Doha last week, I met 1 or 2 involved in national security in, in Gulf states as well. So there is there is a network of people who, who are dealing with this. And their remit is quite wide. non-State hostage taking hasn't gone away. There are particular groups at risk journalists, humanitarian workers.
I met with IRGC, they have a special representative who deals with their people, who are who are taking. They are they are, you know, particularly at risk at the moment. And the numbers have been the numbers have been increasing in relation to that. The . There are people who have been inveigled into crimes. We have a worry about those who are encouraged to take drugs into places. I think there's some international work to be done. There are particularly vulnerable groups who are encouraged to take drugs by international gangs. Persuaded that you're too young, you're too old, it you won't suffer any consequences and all that.
So there's that. So you have a range of, you know, both criminal potential hostage cases. But the rise in state hostage taking has been noticed. I think the Americans suffer more than most in relation to this. But that's what's increased international interest in this and how things can be tackled collectively. So I'm building and building that up. I'm very keen. We are very keen on hosting the core group in 2027 in the United Kingdom, because it will give it greater prominence. We would obviously want high level representation at such a meeting, but we think we'd like to host it and that will add to the the visibility of the United Kingdom being extremely concerned about such a practice.
14:07
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
Talk about all these different countries, and there doesn't seem to be one agreed definition. There's a UN definition. There's an American definition. They're slightly different. But it would be good if the you know, if the concept of arbitrary detention could be could could have a little bit more agreement than, than there is. I mean, when you talk about it yourself, you know, there's a, there's a, there's a range of adjectives. You have to, you have to it would be easier. It would be good if we all knew exactly what we were talking about, I think.
And also in the United States, there's a there's a process for designating people. You know, once you've once you've. Once you've crossed, once you've got over the bar, then you're given the assistance of that department. And it seems to be a bit foggier in the British context.
And also in the United States, there's a there's a process for designating people. You know, once you've once you've. Once you've crossed, once you've got over the bar, then you're given the assistance of that department. And it seems to be a bit foggier in the British context.
14:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It is. You say it's foggier. I might say it's rather more flexible. The Americans privately were not encouraging us to go down the Levinson route and say, set it all out. Because the moment you do set it out, you immediately invite people who are not included in that to say, what about us? And you have people who say, but surely I'm included in this. And you get you get new legal cases arising, which are not necessarily what you want to be doing when you're concentrating and focusing on, on the individual getting wrapped up in definitions.
So although they have this process, it's not foolproof.
So although they have this process, it's not foolproof.
14:09
Dan Carden
-
-
Dan Carden
Alyssa, you. said earlier on up to 30,000 people may be detained abroad each year, I think. And if any MP wanted to meet you about a case of detention that may be complex, you would be up for that. I wonder, is there going to be a way that we're going to know which cases you are actively working on and which, or are you covering all or able to keep an eye on all?
14:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In in all fairness, it's one of the things I'm working through at the moment. The cases that I'm dealing with, a number of which are known to members of Parliament publicly as well as by their constituents, are, are fairly obvious. They're long standing cases. Something has gone wrong in the legal process. 1 or 2 of them are high profile, and that at the moment, it's it's collective judgment, a case where someone is detained for, let's say, a drugs case or something like that will be of enormous interest to the family and to an MP. It won't necessarily be complex.
There'll be if there's access to the individual, if there's a legal process which is being followed, if there is representation which has been picked up because it's the individuals.
There'll be if there's access to the individual, if there's a legal process which is being followed, if there is representation which has been picked up because it's the individuals.
14:10
14:11
14:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That might be an element in it. But but in that there are friendly states where there are practices which cause concern and there could be. That's why it's difficult to set out a list. These are the these are the tests that must be met in order for it to be complex. Remember whether it's designated complex and I'm dealing with it or not. The case is still being dealt with. The state. The case is still being worked on by the consular team. We're beginning to see the significance of the envoy's role as an escalatory step. For example, you get a case where someone has been detained.
We're not sure what's going on. We've contacted by the family and everything else. Firstly, you seek access. If access isn't given, then this is this, this, this is not good. They should be given access and it goes up the scale. The consular team, it goes to the deputy head of mission and the ambassador may make an inquiry. The next stage, of course, it becomes ministerial. It becomes a bilateral issue at the point beyond the ambassador. The envoy can be brought in to to to say, look, this is going in the wrong direction. These are the things that are happening.
I think we might try and descale this what's what's going on. So the envoy role has an escalatory position in in the consular process. But it it's it's genuinely very difficult to define what would be complex and what isn't. But a bit like many things in politics, you know, it when you see it and you know that something different needs to be done. You're not getting the sort of responses that you believe you need on behalf of the citizen you're dealing with.
We're not sure what's going on. We've contacted by the family and everything else. Firstly, you seek access. If access isn't given, then this is this, this, this is not good. They should be given access and it goes up the scale. The consular team, it goes to the deputy head of mission and the ambassador may make an inquiry. The next stage, of course, it becomes ministerial. It becomes a bilateral issue at the point beyond the ambassador. The envoy can be brought in to to to say, look, this is going in the wrong direction. These are the things that are happening.
I think we might try and descale this what's what's going on. So the envoy role has an escalatory position in in the consular process. But it it's it's genuinely very difficult to define what would be complex and what isn't. But a bit like many things in politics, you know, it when you see it and you know that something different needs to be done. You're not getting the sort of responses that you believe you need on behalf of the citizen you're dealing with.
14:13
Dan Carden
-
-
Dan Carden
Perhaps then I could get you to think back to when you were a Foreign Office minister. This committee, its predecessor committee, thought this role was a very good idea. It campaigned for it. Delighted to see it. You were a minister in the Foreign Office, in the Department for International Development as well, for many years. When. What's your what was your experience looking back of these complex cases? And where you thought the improvement needed to be, I guess.
14:13
14:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I had experience both of hostage cases and difficult consular cases. I wasn't involved in hostage negotiation, but. I was involved with decisions that had to be made in relation to Linda Norgrove in Afghanistan. And that was a very difficult, very difficult situation. But the more obvious ones that we know about, whether it's Matthew Hedges and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. They were they were difficult. There's been, you know, a lot of a lot of inquiry into both. So I don't think it's unreasonable to to say something about them publicly, Nazanin, it was about whether or not there should have been greater attention paid to the debt in the first place, and what difference it would ultimately make if she was given diplomatic protection or something like that.
And the case was exhaustively trawled over. Matthew Hedges was was held in the UAE in extremely difficult circumstances. And the issue there was whether or not the consular process responded quickly enough to what was going on. And I think the inquiry suggested that that it hadn't we hadn't moved as quickly as we could. And Nazanin, eventually the debt was paid. Whether anything proved that.
And the case was exhaustively trawled over. Matthew Hedges was was held in the UAE in extremely difficult circumstances. And the issue there was whether or not the consular process responded quickly enough to what was going on. And I think the inquiry suggested that that it hadn't we hadn't moved as quickly as we could. And Nazanin, eventually the debt was paid. Whether anything proved that.
14:15
Emily Thornberry
-
-
Emily Thornberry
Whether the other one that was going on at the same time was a constituent of mine called David Sedge, who was who was a who was on his way to Ethiopia. No, no, he was on his way to Eritrea and was and was kidnapped when he was in Yemen and taken to Ethiopia and held in Ethiopia. And the lessons we learned from that was the was the it would seem to be almost impossible for the British authorities to be able to to talk to anyone in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian government at the time. And it became increasingly clear that there were many layers of Ethiopian government.
And so you could talk at one level, but actually they had no effect in terms of the lower levels. And it took a change of government for him to, in fact, be released. And that was an important lesson.
And so you could talk at one level, but actually they had no effect in terms of the lower levels. And it took a change of government for him to, in fact, be released. And that was an important lesson.
14:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I wasn't involved in that because that was Africa. And it wasn't it wasn't within my ministerial remit. So I didn't know about that one that much. But your explanation provides a good opportunity to say something about when I said earlier, all the cases are unique. They all involve some sort of bargain. You have to find out who is holding somebody and why. Because states are States are different. They're not all Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and some states, the the various factions that form a legitimate government may have different aims. And sometimes in it's clear, talking to colleagues abroad, they know that somebody will have been detained by one faction rather than another.
There may be internal discussions going on. It's your citizen caught up in the middle of this, and you're quite right. Then it becomes who do you speak to to try and get something done? And as I said earlier, the you know, one of the difficulties is ultimately, in some circumstances, states will release people when they want to and when it's in their interest to do so. And there's very little that you can weigh in the balance that can press people to do that unless you know who is holding them and what the bargain might be, and whether or not it's a bargain that a government can contemplate all these.
Dan, in answer to your question, this is what makes this is what makes something more complex than someone being held in in Spain for a drugs offence or a bar room brawl where, you know, it will concern a family. But there's processes, they're all being dealt with. Something will be different about a case that's moved it into an area where, as you said, chair, you've got to find who to speak to. And sometimes that needs. One of the things the committee was concerned about before was whether we used enough intermediaries. And I'm really interested in that, because the conversations I've had have been with people, and I've been asking, who might we talk to about this?
Who, who has the ear of so and so in such and such a circumstance? I think I've got the license to do that. It may be slightly outside consular territory, but I think you've designed and advocated a role where that can be used, and it's in all these areas that we will be able to try and find some some structure, whether I'll ever be able to answer definitively. Have you decided what's a complex case and what isn't? I don't know, but one of the things I'm looking for over the next few months is to be able to answer one of the main questions what is the significance of the envoy's role, and what does it mean when a case goes there?
As I say at the moment, it's just too early to say. Beyond the broad feel that I've given you on the cases I'm already dealing with.
There may be internal discussions going on. It's your citizen caught up in the middle of this, and you're quite right. Then it becomes who do you speak to to try and get something done? And as I said earlier, the you know, one of the difficulties is ultimately, in some circumstances, states will release people when they want to and when it's in their interest to do so. And there's very little that you can weigh in the balance that can press people to do that unless you know who is holding them and what the bargain might be, and whether or not it's a bargain that a government can contemplate all these.
Dan, in answer to your question, this is what makes this is what makes something more complex than someone being held in in Spain for a drugs offence or a bar room brawl where, you know, it will concern a family. But there's processes, they're all being dealt with. Something will be different about a case that's moved it into an area where, as you said, chair, you've got to find who to speak to. And sometimes that needs. One of the things the committee was concerned about before was whether we used enough intermediaries. And I'm really interested in that, because the conversations I've had have been with people, and I've been asking, who might we talk to about this?
Who, who has the ear of so and so in such and such a circumstance? I think I've got the license to do that. It may be slightly outside consular territory, but I think you've designed and advocated a role where that can be used, and it's in all these areas that we will be able to try and find some some structure, whether I'll ever be able to answer definitively. Have you decided what's a complex case and what isn't? I don't know, but one of the things I'm looking for over the next few months is to be able to answer one of the main questions what is the significance of the envoy's role, and what does it mean when a case goes there?
As I say at the moment, it's just too early to say. Beyond the broad feel that I've given you on the cases I'm already dealing with.
14:18
John Whittingdale
-
-
John Whittingdale
Can I press you a little on this? I understand you don't want to specify if you like a tick box approach. In order to sort of qualify as a case that you would take up, but are you able to set out a sort of idea of the broad criteria, which would mean that a case would become appropriate for you to take up?
14:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, without specifying the cases I'm dealing with, but just using them as a background. Let's suppose someone has been detained on charges by a state which are of some seriousness, and consular access may or may not have been allowed. Legal processes begin and begin and begin, and nothing ever happens. Nothing is brought to trial, and the process goes from months into years. At some point that begins to look like what it is. And it's at that. It's in that process that there would be concern. Can you pick that up earlier? I think that's really important.
One of the things the committee was interested in , and we're interested in is , how soon do you sense that something has gone wrong and elevate it? That's a potential area of concern. You may have some cases where someone may have served a sentence, but then they're still detained for some reason because something else is suggested. Well, what can we see it? And if not, why not? That's the sort of case that would begin to look like this is not an appropriate detention, which is dealt with normally through the legal system. So there's there's a couple of examples, but it seems to me you've got cases there where something has provided a reason.
The United Kingdom does not have to make a decision as to whether it's a valid reason or not. In most cases in Iran, it may be an exception, but in most cases, if if if someone is charged, then there should be due process of law to assess whether those charges are fair or not. But we're not required to to make a decision whether someone is innocent or not, because the the families may have one view, a state may have another, but we don't have investigatory powers. But if if a case is begins with a charge, and then nothing happens for months or potentially years, then something has obviously gone wrong.
And it's not unreasonable for a state to intervene at that stage and say, this begins to look like what we think it is.
One of the things the committee was interested in , and we're interested in is , how soon do you sense that something has gone wrong and elevate it? That's a potential area of concern. You may have some cases where someone may have served a sentence, but then they're still detained for some reason because something else is suggested. Well, what can we see it? And if not, why not? That's the sort of case that would begin to look like this is not an appropriate detention, which is dealt with normally through the legal system. So there's there's a couple of examples, but it seems to me you've got cases there where something has provided a reason.
The United Kingdom does not have to make a decision as to whether it's a valid reason or not. In most cases in Iran, it may be an exception, but in most cases, if if if someone is charged, then there should be due process of law to assess whether those charges are fair or not. But we're not required to to make a decision whether someone is innocent or not, because the the families may have one view, a state may have another, but we don't have investigatory powers. But if if a case is begins with a charge, and then nothing happens for months or potentially years, then something has obviously gone wrong.
And it's not unreasonable for a state to intervene at that stage and say, this begins to look like what we think it is.
14:21
John Whittingdale
-
-
John Whittingdale
But actually, in quite a number of the most notorious cases that are raised publicly, there has been a legal process and there has been a sentence passed. Now, there are then very serious doubts about the fairness of the legal process or the proportionality of the sentence. But, you know, we have, for instance, Doughty Street, who are very active in representing individuals that kind in legal cases. I mean, do you get involved or do you work with Doughty Street, or do you stand aside if there is a legal process underway?
14:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It gives me a very good opportunity to say that we do indeed work with and know of Doughty Street work, as we do with a number of other NGOs, where the hostage international prisoners abroad, and they provide immense support and service both to our citizens and helpful work to to the Foreign Office. There is the Vienna Convention that covers legal processes abroad, which you will all be aware of as well as me. And this makes it difficult for the United Kingdom to intervene in a legal process which has been characterised as unfair, unless it's it's blindingly obvious, but but we have no investigatory powers ourselves.
And that is that is a difficulty. But we're not able to go into cases where people will claim it's manifestly unfair unless there is something as obvious as one of the cases we're dealing with at the moment, where it's already been described in the in the House of Commons as innocent tourists who have been caught up in something where there's no legal process that can really give any credibility to the charges that that are being faced. But the but handling other countries legal processes is difficult because they will raise the convention as soon as you challenge a court process and say, this is not the British government cannot do this.
It's another added complication, I'm afraid. John.
And that is that is a difficulty. But we're not able to go into cases where people will claim it's manifestly unfair unless there is something as obvious as one of the cases we're dealing with at the moment, where it's already been described in the in the House of Commons as innocent tourists who have been caught up in something where there's no legal process that can really give any credibility to the charges that that are being faced. But the but handling other countries legal processes is difficult because they will raise the convention as soon as you challenge a court process and say, this is not the British government cannot do this.
It's another added complication, I'm afraid. John.
14:23
14:23
14:24
John Whittingdale
-
-
John Whittingdale
Are you will be involved not just in cases where somebody has been wrongly detained or it's arbitrary detention, but you'd also be involved in cases where we would feel that whilst they may have committed an offence, the sentence passed is is completely unjustified or wrong. In the case of a death penalty.
14:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We the UK is non-judgemental in relation to supporting our citizens, no matter what our citizens or dual national citizens have been charged with. They're entitled not to be tortured. They're entitled not to disappear and become incommunicado. We have to have access to them. They're entitled to be properly treated. If they have been sentenced in relation to a crime or anything else, all those things, and we make no judgment on on what they may have done or anything like that, they're all entitled to that. And on that, I feel very strongly. I mean, I'm a former lawyer, as many of us are knocking around the place.
And you, you apply those principles. There are things that if you let go of, once you're in a position of saying, someone can turn the key and we can forget all about them, look what they've done. It's a slippery slope. So , so we hold to those things and we are involved in those cases. Yes.
And you, you apply those principles. There are things that if you let go of, once you're in a position of saying, someone can turn the key and we can forget all about them, look what they've done. It's a slippery slope. So , so we hold to those things and we are involved in those cases. Yes.
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
This might be different. This might be different in terms of rule of thumb on. non-State, non-state hostage situations that we saw with ISIS and others in times gone past. No, this role would not be designed for that. We have specialist negotiators who deal with that. Gaza was, of course, different. The scale of it was different than everything else. I have met the two Adams from Mishcon de Reya, who were so enormously helpful in those cases I've offered to meet. They suggested I should meet some of the UK relatives of those hostages, and I've said, absolutely be keen to to do so.
And I think had that been going on, there would probably have been a role for the envoy, maybe in working with the with the families who were engaged here, ensuring on their behalf that everything was being done, because that was I said, you know, some little time ago, almost all these cases are unique. We've never had anything quite like that. And if there had been a role for me, I would have certainly accepted engagement with it.
And I think had that been going on, there would probably have been a role for the envoy, maybe in working with the with the families who were engaged here, ensuring on their behalf that everything was being done, because that was I said, you know, some little time ago, almost all these cases are unique. We've never had anything quite like that. And if there had been a role for me, I would have certainly accepted engagement with it.
14:27
14:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The first thing I said to my interlocutor in Doha was, thank you for the work that they have already been engaged on, both publicly and behind the scenes. I've no difficulty in working with anyone. I think you get problems when people say, well, you mustn't talk to so and so. Some of us were around during the, the the Irish situation and all that. And how many years went by without talking to elements of Sinn Fein or the IRA and proscribed organizations. And eventually, of course, the government did, you know, firstly, privately and then more publicly, there's got to be avenues and channels.
They're not always public and they wouldn't always be things I would speak about in front of in front of yourselves. But I think you should be aware that I've got no bar. Anyone who can help a UK detained citizen, one of our nationals or dual nationals I will talk to if there's an opportunity that they will help. Talking to people doesn't imply a judgement about them. It doesn't imply an endorsement of who they are or what they stand for. And as a Foreign Office minister in the Middle East, I was dealing with a variety of different regimes at different times, where their aims and ideals would not be the same as those of the United Kingdom.
But nobody suggested that in talking to them, I was somehow doing something I shouldn't, or devaluing the UK's position. And in these circumstances, absolutely. Can anybody help us? You bet. I'll talk to them. And the Qataris are good at this. And there are there are others. But again, I wish I could say there is a way through in every single case, I'm not sure. But certainly there are people who are keen to talk in almost any circumstances and people who may know better than our existing consular processes may uncover who might be holding somebody and why.
And as I said earlier, in the most difficult cases, that's what you want to get to. Who's doing this? What are they after? What's their relationship with their existing regime? Because in terms of finding off ramps, always remember the detaining party has a say in this. They have a role to play . And doing something because the British asked them to may not be the best card to play. So you're looking for things where people can do what it is you think is right, but they feel in control of the situation because they are, and you've helped them reach that point.
And sometimes you need friends who know people slightly better than you do in order to do that.
They're not always public and they wouldn't always be things I would speak about in front of in front of yourselves. But I think you should be aware that I've got no bar. Anyone who can help a UK detained citizen, one of our nationals or dual nationals I will talk to if there's an opportunity that they will help. Talking to people doesn't imply a judgement about them. It doesn't imply an endorsement of who they are or what they stand for. And as a Foreign Office minister in the Middle East, I was dealing with a variety of different regimes at different times, where their aims and ideals would not be the same as those of the United Kingdom.
But nobody suggested that in talking to them, I was somehow doing something I shouldn't, or devaluing the UK's position. And in these circumstances, absolutely. Can anybody help us? You bet. I'll talk to them. And the Qataris are good at this. And there are there are others. But again, I wish I could say there is a way through in every single case, I'm not sure. But certainly there are people who are keen to talk in almost any circumstances and people who may know better than our existing consular processes may uncover who might be holding somebody and why.
And as I said earlier, in the most difficult cases, that's what you want to get to. Who's doing this? What are they after? What's their relationship with their existing regime? Because in terms of finding off ramps, always remember the detaining party has a say in this. They have a role to play . And doing something because the British asked them to may not be the best card to play. So you're looking for things where people can do what it is you think is right, but they feel in control of the situation because they are, and you've helped them reach that point.
And sometimes you need friends who know people slightly better than you do in order to do that.
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
John Whittingdale
-
-
John Whittingdale
This is nothing to do with you. And they would they would just close the door. I mean, to give you an the release of prisoners from Russia, which took place quite recently, included Evan Gershkovich, who was an American citizen. But it also included Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is a British national dual citizen, I believe, now. I mean, that was. negotiated between the US and Russia. But is that something that you would have also .
14:31
14:31
14:31
14:31
14:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is it helpful to, to include one of our. citizens in in that. And the Americans have been have been good at, as we know, in 1 or 2 cases, they've raised UK national. interests as well as their own. I don't think there's any bar in that, but a non-UK national per se. The United Kingdom has no locus to be involved and we wouldn't be able to detaining state would say,
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Talked to the group about and be active. I'm, I haven't been I haven't been asked by Alysia so far to, to go in front of that group. But we are in contact and I would expect to, to do so. And whether that group were. Again, I'd have to be careful of who was in the room, simply because I don't have the consent to talk about people's cases beyond their individual MPs or anything like that. But would I be able to discuss the cases with the chair of the Appg?
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:32
Dan Carden
-
-
Dan Carden
Sort of final. Yes. Just thought maybe I could make one observation, because I think everybody here is delighted to see the creation of the role. Delighted to see your appointment to it. But we talked a little bit about how the Fcdo and. sometimes post in country will put the bilateral relationship first and be perhaps. conservative in their approaches to governments over cases. It strikes me that you not having a staff and not having an office to take up more of the work that needs to be done between families and government and the the.
country could be,
country could be,
14:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Could, could make your role a bit more difficult. And it's a good question. In answer to the resource question. We just don't know at the moment. I've not been turning away cases or anything like that. And as I say, every case is handled by a competent consular team who are already doing. absolutely everything they can in every circumstance. What would be wrong would be to give an impression that the engagement of the envoy. materially changes that. and somehow adds, adds an. indefinable element that will. automatically make make everything better or produce solutions that haven't been produced before.
I said right at the beginning when we were talking about my wish to be.
I said right at the beginning when we were talking about my wish to be.
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And a family may be very annoyed and think that I'm putting a bilateral relationship first or anything like that, but I'm making my judgment in what I consider to be the best interests of the detainee. Now. I don't know how many cases might. ultimately sort of come through, as I say, where a case is being perfectly properly handled and none of us can see that the addition of the envoy makes a difference, then I'm not going to be. involved where we do, I will take them on. And as I say, in those escalatory system. situations with the remit that you you read out earlier, if post feels actually bringing the envoy in will help us because it's a step before we go to the minister.
And in this particular country, there might be hesitant of this becoming a bilateral.
And in this particular country, there might be hesitant of this becoming a bilateral.
14:35
14:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Maybe the envoy could come in here and maybe we could see a settlement. I would be wanting to do those. If those become a huge number, then then yes, it might require a bigger staff. But at the moment my staff is everybody who works in consular. My access to consular Minister Stephen Doughty to Foreign. Secretary and ultimately to the Prime Minister is not in any doubt. When I see the seriousness of a case and want to get a message through, should that become more.
difficult and we simply get.
difficult and we simply get.
14:36
14:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Then again, I would expect to be able to make the right. representation to those who control the resources and the Fcdo and be able to respond to that. But as I say, if you would be kind enough to see me on a further occasion, in a few months time, I'll be able to say where we've got to February, March next year or something like .
14:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That would be would be if that's within your time schedule. I think. I think the question that Dan raises, I think, is one that is probably worrying all of us. I think there is, you know, we send. people through the Foreign Office to another country to make friends with that other country and and to do everything they can to increase British influence. And then there'll be times when there's a. disagreement because someone has been held. And so you're being pulled in both directions. You've made all these attempts to make friends with the particular country. And now every conversation you have with officials is about an individual who's in jail.
So, so the. addition of a, of a, of a, of a special envoy with. responsibility .
So, so the. addition of a, of a, of a, of a special envoy with. responsibility .
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Conversations to be clouded by something like that. I will say yeah, no, no, no. And there's that as well. So so it's not just staff, but it's also ministers. And that's where you come in. And I think so I think I think the point that Dan raises is one I think that concerns all of us. I think the other thing speaking for myself, but I suspect speaking for others, and especially in the tone of some of Edward's.
14:37
14:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Is it's difficult, therefore, at the moment and you kind of accept this, by the way, that you've been answering. questions is that it's quite difficult for us to because the role is still being developed. It's quite difficult for us, therefore, as a committee, to hold to account whether or not you're being effective because it's so subtle and the and the the terms of. reference are obscure and, and the, and the work that you're doing is not. necessarily as, as. clear as, as it would be easier for us to be able to measure whether this is going well or this is not going well.
And it's particularly. important given. This is almost like a this is the first person to do this job. We're looking at what can work and what can't work. And we as a committee want to be helpful in terms of having an input as well.
And it's particularly. important given. This is almost like a this is the first person to do this job. We're looking at what can work and what can't work. And we as a committee want to be helpful in terms of having an input as well.
14:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But if we can't measure what's working and what isn't, it's going to be hard for us, then I would have no difficulty in dealing with a written piece from you. What what would you determine is effective and successful if you wanted to set out at this stage what you what you would think would be a success? I'd be I'd be very happy to to receive that because we're all trying to do the same thing here. And I, we know I mean, you know me well enough. I'm not. adversarial in. In that sense, I'm only adversarial on behalf of detained UK.
14:39
14:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Mono and dual nationals. How can we best serve them now? You believe this role plays a crucial part, as I do. Let's work. At the moment, it's difficult to measure effectiveness because it's a new. But if you think that in some way the role needs tightened and. Have some ideas, please let's continue this process. You were part of the process of setting it up. That process is still continuing. I believe you've got a government that is very interested in this. You have a foreign secretary not afraid to take. decisions and not afraid to speak about values.
You have a.
You have a.
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Every support in the Foreign Office for doing so. Right. Is there anything else? I think that that takes us to the end. So that concludes our session on complex consular detentions. Thank you very much, Alistair Burt, for your evidence today. Can I just say once a lawyer, always a lawyer. There is no escaping it. No. You know,
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40