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.
|
