Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of witnesses (Questions 120 - 138)

TUESDAY 2 JUNE 1998

THE RT HON ROBIN COOK, MP, MR EMYR JONES PARRY, CMG

and MR SIMON GASS

Mr Wilshire

  120.  No, I did not. I did give notice of it via the newspapers.
  (Mr Cook)  The notice would not have changed the answer.

  121.  All I would say to the Foreign Secretary on that point is that had I been a member of this Committee and had we been discussing this with the previous Government I would have made the same points that I am about to make. Who agreed the design of this table?
  (Mr Cook)  We have a company which is responsible for the design of all the events associated with the Presidency. It is actually being manufactured by a British company in Whitstable and I would happily enquire into at what minute of what day this decision was taken, but I am bound to say that I thoroughly approved of the decision.

  122.  Which Minister authorised the purchase?
  (Mr Cook)  I would need notice to enquire into what ministerial approval was given but I can find out. Since I thoroughly approve of this table, I suppose I am happy to say that I approved it. Mr Parry, I am told, can elucidate on the decision making process.
  (Mr Jones Parry)  If it would help I can explain a little bit of the background of the way the budget operates. I have delegated authority from Ministers to manage the Presidency budget. As part of that the promotion company we use could I give as an example. When we went out to tender we had three bids. We went for the one which was the lowest in price, and then we took, if I can say so to this Committee, the best bits of the other two tenders, added them to the initial bid that we were inclined to take, and then drove the price down. We did put under a very tight control and that decision was answerable to the Minister, Baroness Symons, and she approved the decision we took and it was one which saved a huge amount of money, I have to say. All the decisions taken in the Presidency have been taken on that same basis. What the Foreign Secretary did not know when he gave that answer was that had we gone out to hire such a table we would not have been able to get the oval table of the sort which is best for handling this sort of meeting.

Chairman

  123.  It is like a rugby ball, is it?
  (Mr Jones Parry)  It is convenient for the Chair to be able to see when people want to speak. Had we gone out to hire a table we would probably have had to spend at least half that amount on a table. For the extra additional sum I took the view that to be able to get a table, which was then usable throughout the office, of the right quality was a decision that was proper to take.
  (Mr Cook)  Also on the question of design of the table, we had the CHOGM in Edinburgh, which was also an oval table, one that came with the conference hall, and it was a very successful format because in the chair the Prime Minister can then see everybody. If you have a rectangular table it is difficult for him to see the people on his side. You also have the difficult question of balancing the status of the people who are round the different sides of the table and avoiding a sense of confrontation between one side and the other. For the dynamics of the meeting having an oval table does make a lot of sense and worked well at CHOGM. I am a little bit perplexed at some of the criticism that has come that it has a hole in the middle. Of course, oval tables of that size often do. It would be an awful lot more expensive to fill in the hole.

Mr Wilshire

  124.  As I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows, every Member of Parliament is sent an office furniture catalogue by a national supplier. I looked at mine this morning and I looked up the requirements that he says he needs for his table. Would it come as a surprise to him to know that the cost of doing that is £4,500 less the MPs' discount offered with the catalogue, plus VAT, plus wiring, one tenth of the taxpayers' money that appears to be wasted. I have the catalogue here if he would like it.
  (Mr Cook)  I would totally rebut the idea that we could get a table of this size and this standard with the wiring we require for this for £4,500. If I could finish my point, I think that is wholly implausible and I would also remind the Committee and Mr Wilshire that we are providing this table at a cost per delegate present at 33 per cent less than the previous Government did six years ago. I think that is a pretty solid achievement.

Ms Abbott

  125.  I must move away from these elevated matters and ask you briefly about Hong Kong. Actually they had a very successful election with a much higher turnout than people expected and very good results from the democracy candidates, Martin Lee and so on. We wondered if the Council was likely to discuss any aspects of Hong Kong.
  (Mr Cook)  I think it quite possible that among the comments on external relations they will note the very satisfactory results that have been achieved on the election and I would hope myself that that would focus on the spectacular turnout which is 50 per cent up on previous election figures in Hong Kong. That is very encouraging and demonstrates the strong attachment for the people of Hong Kong to retaining the democratic institutions and procedures. I would hope that we would also recognise that this is but a step towards universal franchise in Hong Kong as provided for by the Basic Law.

  126.  Is there any possibility for speeding up the timetable on the basic law. That is certainly what the successful democracy candidates and also even some of the successful candidates from pro Beijing parties were saying in the wake of the election, that it was time to look at speeding up that timetable.
  (Mr Cook)  I think we have to be very cautious about any representations we might be making to change either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law because there are lots of people in other places who might wish to change other provisions of the Basic Law or the Joint Declaration. I am not sure that I would recommend that it would be wise for us to open the door to re-examine that. On the contrary, I think it is a more sensible strategy on our part to make sure that the provisions of the Basic Law and Joint Declaration are implemented. That does not mean that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region could not, if it chose, introduce the universal franchise faster than provided in the Basic Law. That is essentially a matter for them but I would be reluctant about us taking the initiative over proposing changes in our agreement.

Sir John Stanley

  127.  Foreign Secretary, I have to say I was amazed to hear your description of the recent Hong Kong elections as, in your words if I took them down correctly, "successful results in the election". How can you possibly describe as a democrat a successful result in which pro-democracy parties, which secure two-thirds of the vote, end up with barely one third of the seats, and is not a better description of the elections that given by Emily Low as reported in The Independent in which she described the election system as "an absolute disgrace which makes Hong Kong a laughing stock"? Is it not surely the British Government's view, regardless of what is stated in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, that it would be highly desirable if the Hong Kong electoral system moved as quickly as possible to the abolition of the functional constituencies and a proper one person/one vote universal suffrage system introduced?
  (Mr Cook)  First of all, let us be clear. You are making two different observations. I do think it was a successful result of the elections in that 53 per cent took part and that greatly exceeded predictions beforehand. I read a lot of comment in the British press that people would not turn out to vote. They did turn out. They demonstrated their faith in the commitment to democracy and they did so in much larger numbers than they have ever done before. Frankly, yes, I think that is a success and I do not resile from that. I would suggest that members should also recognise that that interest and demonstration of commitment to democracy is a success. As to the results in terms of the outcome, the proportions that you give reflect on the large number of seats on the Hong Kong LegCo which are not directly elected. They reflect first of all those who are appointed by the Election Committee. They reflect also those coming from the functional constituencies, a number which was expanded by the last Governor, Chris Patten. Our position on the functional constituencies is well known. I have said it here, I have said it in Hong Kong. We deeply regret the way in which the franchise for the functional constituencies has been curtailed by the present administration of Hong Kong and we believe that the action in reducing the numbers of people, quite dramatically in the case of the functional constituencies, to a tenth of the previous number limits the value of those functional constituencies as a test of democracy. That is why when I spoke earlier I said that when we welcomed the high numbers taking part, which I think we should do and I do not think we should fail to use that as a very clear demonstration of the commitment of Hong Kong to democracy and their wish to have more of it, we should also, as I said, recognise that this is but a step towards a universal franchise.

  128.  I am very glad you say that. When you say "a step towards", what do you believe would be an appropriate timetable to achieve that?
  (Mr Cook)  It is set out by the Basic Law on the Joint Declaration signed by the previous Government, and that, if I recall correctly, implies that there should be a universal franchise by 2007. That is what I inherited from the previous administration and, as I said earlier, I do not think I would recommend that the British Government seeks to disturb the agreements we have with Beijing on this matter because that could uncork a lot of things we may not wish to see disturbed. Of course, if, which is perfectly within its powers, the Government of Hong Kong chose to expedite that timetable we would welcome it.

Ms Abbott

  129.  There is no doubt that the degree of arms control is very important but you must know that the criticism of it from a number of quarters is that it is a Code which lacks teeth.
  (Mr Cook)  I again have to say that nobody promised 100 per cent success and it would be rash to do so when you are in negotiation with 14 other partners, but I would very much claim this as a success in two parts. First of all, we now have very detailed agreement to common criteria which every Member State will apply when deciding whether or not to license an arms export. The detail of those criteria provide for the first time a real, solid common basis so that we all apply the same standards and that is welcome. The second major gain from the Code is that for the first time it provides a mechanism by which there will be deterrents to countries undercutting each other on standards of human rights. Any country which decides not to license an export on grounds of human rights basis or on grounds of anxiety about aggression in the region will notify all the other Member States and any other Member State which subsequently wishes to take up that contract must first consult the country which refused it and then must formally notify them if it intends to persist. I hope that that will work as a very effective political restraint on countries competing against each other on standards of human rights. It is not legally binding; there was no prospect of us getting agreement that would be legally binding, but it is politically binding and I think will act as a real restraint. I think that is progress and, to be fair, most of the NGOs have recognised it as progress. One of them said, and I would not dissent from that, that I have obtained half a loaf but at least I am to be congratulated on having secured half a loaf.

  130.  But the Code does nothing to tackle the problems of arms brokers such as Sandline International. Many arms deals organised by companies or individuals in the EU involve the transfer of arms from third countries without the weapons touching EU soil, for instance arms transfers from Bulgaria to Sierra Leone, organised from London. Do you agree that the lack of control on arms brokers undermines the export control system?
  (Mr Cook)  There is no question at any stage of the Code applying to arms brokers for the simple fact that at the moment we, like most other European countries, have no national measures against arms brokers. The DTI is about to publish a review on control of arms exports. One of the questions which it will canvass for views is how we can tackle the questions of arms brokering. Since we have no national position, and indeed most other countries have no national position, on arms brokering, there was no basis on which I could build a common position among our European allies and indeed it would have been premature for me to have sought to do so before we had resolved what our own policy would be.

Sir John Stanley

  131.  Are you currently paving the way of perhaps including at this summit for a reversal of British Government policy on arms supply to Sierra Leone with a change of the UN resolution so that arms supplies to ECOMOG would be permitted?
  (Mr Cook)  We certainly would not raise it at the Cardiff Summit because what we do in the Security Council we do as a permanent member of the Security Council, not as a member of the European Union. It is important that we retain that distinction. However, it is the case, as you will have seen, that we believe it would be helpful and viable for Sierra Leone if we clarified the current position in relation to arms supplies. Resolution 1132, which is the parent legislation, did provide that the arms embargo would be lifted once constitutional government was restored. It could be argued that constitutional government is restored and there now is not an arms embargo. That actually would be very unhelpful because the rebel forces are still fighting in large parts of the hinterland and we want to make sure that there is a clear Security Council basis by which there could be the resumption of arms supplies to those forces that are on the side of constitutional government but that arms would remain embargoed to the rebels who maintain the fighting in the bush.

  132.  So it is now British Government policy to promote clarification or if necessary an amendment of the existing resolution which would enable arms supplies to go to ECOMOG?
  (Mr Cook)  We have said we would support a resolution in the Security Council and are working on the drafting of one to provide a new regime on the arms embargo in Sierra Leone. If I may say so, this is not a reversal of policy. Resolution 1132 which we had a large hand in drafting always envisaged that the arms embargo would be lifted when constitutional government was imposed.

Mr Rowlands

  133.  Criterion II: first of all may I say that this is a most important ground-breaking document. I really do think this does break new ground and it gets other Member States, like the French who are major arms suppliers, to come along with this. I think it is a very significant step. In Criterion II on internal repression, would these terms and these definitions for example have prevented the export of the sort of equipment that went to Indonesia which the Government inherited from the previous administration?
  (Mr Cook)  I have to pick my words with care in relation to any specific country because that is a Code that will apply worldwide. It is not based on a blacklist of named countries. It is the case that we ourselves adopted new criteria on British arms exports from July of this year and it is also the case that in my judgement some of that equipment provided by the previous administration and which were offered licences would not have obtained licences under the new criteria and indeed in the specific case of Indonesia have been refused since that change in policy. In the case of the Code of Conduct what we say is that Member States will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression and that very closely mirrors the provision in our own criteria which says that it might be used for internal represssion.

  134.  The most familiar image of internal repression equipment is water cannon and the like. Does Criterion II catch such equipment?
  (Mr Cook)  As I said, it is dangerous to get involved in hypothecating about specific countries and specific circumstances.

  135.  Not countries: equipment.
  (Mr Cook)  Water cannon plainly are something that could be used for internal repression and where one would expect Member States to apply that special caution and vigilance in issuing licences for it.

  136.  The whole administration of export licences for arms has been raised on numerous occasions. Have we got an established pattern of approving export licences? Quite a lot seem to be approved at very low official level rather than come up to Ministers. Has there been a review of the whole process of approving arms export licences?
  (Mr Cook)  I would not myself find it unusual that many applications are approved without reference to Ministers. We have set out very detailed criteria. We have set out the areas of our concern. Applications for licences run at the order of 20,000 a year, so you are dealing with a very large number and many of those can be routinely approved at official level. All those which raise questions of concern are referred to a Minister and I think it is fair to say that the numbers referred to Ministers have increased rather than reduced.

Mr Heath

  137.  I think that the transparency of the arms export licensing system is minimal at the moment and might well be addressed. I want to talk on a rather wider sense of transparency within the European Union, something you have highlighted, quite rightly, as an objective of the British Presidency. I do not want to rehearse the welcome progress you have made in some areas. I want to look at two areas where progress has been perhaps less marked. The first of those is the Second Pillar. Did Britain put forward proposals for greater transparency in the Second Pillar and if so, what happened to them because there has not seemed to be any effective action?
  (Mr Cook)  I am not sure I would concur with that. First of all you are right that we have made progress towards greater transparency and we are particularly pleased that the number of people attending the open council meetings during our Presidency breaks all records. Indeed, we broke the record halfway through our Presidency. That does include meeting the General Affairs Council which focuses mainly on Second Pillar issues. We had a very well attended meeting early on in our Presidency to which a large number of NGOs came to hear what was being said and to listen to it live. Also we did take the lead when the Amsterdam Treaty was being negotiated to make sure that the provisions on public access to documents do specifically cover Second Pillar documents. I think that on those counts we could say that we have not at all ring fenced Second Pillar issues from greater transparency. Lastly, in terms of accountability, as I said to the Committee, I was at the European Parliament last week. We submitted for the first time a full report on the progress on the CFSP and I gave a very full report to the European Parliament in response to their comments on it. I think we could robustly argue that we have made a fair number of steps towards openness and accountability within the Second Pillar.

  138.  Time is short, Chairman. We could pursue that. I want to go on instead to the relationship between British Ministers in their activities within the European Council meetings and the information that is provided both to us as a Foreign Affairs Committee and our sister Committees, and to ordinary Members of Parliament. There were assurances given at the start of the Presidency that we would see a much more open transparent process. I have to say that as an individual Member I still have difficulties in knowing what is to be put on to the agenda of a Council meeting in various cases, having an opportunity to discuss that with Ministers in any forum prior to the meeting or after the meeting. There is a marked difference between the British position on this and some of the other Member States where there is much greater dialogue between Ministers and parliamentarians about the activities within the European Union. Is it not the case that a Government which is committed to transparency and openness as it professes should be bringing the British arrangements up to the standard of the best, of which it falls far short at the moment?
  (Mr Cook)  I would agree with you that we do need to improve our standards of scrutiny in Britain and we have a lot to learn from other countries. We have made a number of proposals to the Modernisation Committee on how we can improve scrutiny of European legislation and also, as in the case of Second Pillar, European business. The Modernisation Committee is a very important innovation in our procedures in Parliament. It has a very wide agenda and it will be some time I imagine before it is able to complete that agenda. It is perhaps a matter of regret that the British Presidency came so early in the life of this Parliament that those proposals had not been fed back for approval by the House, but I would very much hope that with the co-operation of that Committee we can see improvement for scrutiny. On the wider point, though, I would say that I personally have sought to provide every possible information about what we are doing in the General Affairs Council and report on our activities afterwards. One of the differences between ourselves and some of our continental countries is that it is not always possible to get the same degree of media interest about what happens at European level as occurs in some of these other countries. Indeed, I hope I am not too cynical if I suggest that the fact that we have read so little about the British Presidency in the British press reflects the fact that it has gone so very well. Had it not done so we might have read more about it.
  (Mr Jones Parry)  May I just add in response to what Mr Heath said that I believe we have, in response to parliamentary questions, given throughout a list of all the Councils and the indicative agenda for each Council in advance of Councils, so we have tried to open up the transparency.

Chairman:  Foreign Secretary, I know that the Committee will want to return to talk about the dialogue with you on the role of Parliament and of this Committee in relation to European matters, the Code on arms exports and so on. May I thank you and your colleagues for your contribution this morning and wish you a productive session in Geneva.

  


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 6 July1998