Select Committee on Health Minutes of Evidence



Examination of witnesses (Questions 1400 - 1419)

WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2000

MR M BROUGHTON, MR K CLARKE, MR C BATES and MR D CAMPBELL

Chairman

  1400. Have you actually seen these documents which are relevant to Mr Bates's evidence, Mr Clarke? Have you studied them?
  (Mr Clarke) These are not referred to in The Guardian article.
  (Mr Bates) I sent them to you.
  (Mr Clarke) Yesterday; I saw them yesterday. Take the first quotation, so you can get in context our inability instantly to lay hands on these documents and answer in context, we have eight million pages of documents at Guildford which were carefully combed through by Mr Campbell and Mr Bates. You then get produced to you two sentences. In The Guardian article, from documents which it was not possible to identify in the article in some cases, in this case there is a reference so it will eventually be possible to get out the file and the documents which are referred to. With the greatest respect, any case which depends on taking sentences out of eight million pages and then turning round and asking why we have not read the documents with the notice we have had is quite absurd. So far as this is concerned, I saw it yesterday.

  1401. Presumably you would be happy in the context of this inquiry to look at the evidence they are putting forward and come back to the Committee with your comments on the concerns expressed by Mr Bates and Mr Campbell. This is directly relevant to the smuggling issue which concerns us in terms of this inquiry, I am sure you appreciate that.
  (Mr Clarke) I will listen to what Mr Bates and Mr Campbell say. The idea that I come back to the Committee ... There is a limit to the extent to which one can support investigative journalists and campaigners selecting from eight million documents. What I shall do, if the suggestion is that Paul Adams has been involved in actually participating in smuggling, is I shall discuss that with Mr Adams, I shall try to look at the documents and listen to what he has to say. I think to come backwards and forwards to the Committee ... This Committee has called this session on the basis of an article in The Guardian. There is a limit to the extent to which select committees, using the protection of privilege, presumably because you were a bit worried about the position of Mr Adams, should keep having people back to consider these things.

  1402. I should have thought it was in your interests to respond to these specific points which are directly related to the evidence which Mr Bates is putting forward on the smuggling question. I am trying to be fair to you in ensuring that you have the right to respond to his allegations. This was a concern you expressed right at the start and we are trying to give a fair hearing to you and your company.
  (Mr Clarke) We have responded. I am very grateful to you. SUTL is a perfectly legitimate wholesaler. We do sell to Singapore, as far as I am aware it is a legitimate wholesaler, duty is paid, the exports are recorded. It is our Singapore wholesaler and what we said before. Beyond that, it is not controlled by BAT. What happens, if allegations are made about control, the proper course in the first place is for the audit committee to look at this and see whether our controls have broken down or whether people are not following proper procedures. With great respect it is an extraordinary use of a select committee to start working with The Guardian and Channel Four who have tried to stand this on its feet.

  1403. When you look at the number of people who are dying from the consumption of tobacco I am sure you will appreciate that it is a serious health issue and smuggling is clearly related to the number of people who are consuming.
  (Mr Clarke) I am quite prepared to discuss the health issue which is totally separate.

  1404. The number of people who are consuming, particularly children and young people.
  (Mr Clarke) Another allegation made is that smuggling is something to do with children and young people.

  1405. Mr Bates, you were saying that you have supplied these documents to BAT. Your evidence has gone to BAT.
  (Mr Bates) Yes. Let me make it absolutely clear.

  1406. On the record.
  (Mr Bates) On the same day that I supplied evidence to this Select Committee, which was 31 January, I wrote to Mr Clarke and Mr Broughton supplying a summary of these documents which was published on our website with all the documents available as image download copies. The information was available on our website from 31 January and I wrote to both Mr Clarke and Mr Broughton and telephoned their office to alert to that on the day. Let me be clear about this. He did not see these for the first time yesterday. I had a reply from him, thanking me for my representations and in response to my letter of 31 January. It was not as though these had been sprung on him. Between that reply and sending him the documents, he published his all-clear valedictory in The Guardian and I think he did that without looking properly.

Mr Austin

  1407. Could we know the date of the reply from Mr Clarke?
  (Mr Bates) The date of his reply to me was earlier this week. It arrived on Monday.
  (Mr Campbell) February 10.

Mr Burns

  1408. Before I ask the question I wanted to ask may I just go back to Mr Bates's submission to us, paragraph 8.6 and the references he made to China. The headline of that sub-paragraph is quite dogmatic and straightforward. Then presumably up to the line of asterisks is the evidence to prove that sub-heading, amongst other bits of evidence. Could Mr Bates just explain to me in simple language how that meeting note is evidence to justify the heading so I fully understand?
  (Mr Bates) They are talking here about developing overland routes and that is frequently used as a euphemism for transiting and smuggling.

  1409. But surely not always in that you can bring many cigarettes legally into this country by overland routes.
  (Mr Bates) Indeed.

  1410. So that is not smuggling. So that need not be smuggling in that minute.
  (Mr Bates) Indeed.

  1411. Am I right, that need not mean smuggling?
  (Mr Bates) In the context in which overland routes are used in these documents that does refer to smuggling.

  1412. Hang on. That is your interpretation.
  (Mr Bates) Indeed it is my interpretation.

  1413. Not every overland route means that the product going overland is being smuggled.
  (Mr Bates) If you took that absolutely literally—

  1414. Yes, I do.
  (Mr Bates)—then it is possible that since they are not airfreighted or brought in by sea routes, then you could, if you interpreted that absolutely literally. The key point is the fact that enquiries for duty paid, which is legal, should be referred to BAT China. So the two sentences together, one referring to duty paid or legal and the other referring to overland routes going through a different channel, make the meaning clear.

  1415. Sorry, you have lost me.
  (Mr Bates) Sorry, let me do that again then.

  1416. It is not quite so clear for me. Please do.
  (Mr Bates) It is the juxtaposition of the two parts of that first line, "Enquiries for duty paid should be referred to BAT China" in other words one distribution channel, juxtaposed with "SUTL are encouraged to expand overland routes through Indochina", in other words a different distribution channel. Because duty paid refers to legal products, the implication is that overland routes here refers to illegal or smuggled products and the fact that that term "overland routes" is frequently used to refer to smuggling—

  1417. But not necessarily always; obviously not.
  (Mr Bates) I cannot claim to have read the entire eight million documents but generally that sort of language refers to smuggling. It is the two taken together which indicates that that is what SUTL was required to do, to develop these kinds of routes.

  1418. So the interpretation of the first half is basically a supposition on your part, it is not a 100 per cent accurate fact.
  (Mr Bates) No, I would not put it quite like that. It is that the two parts of that sentence together make the case that what was being discussed in the first part was illegal movement of cigarettes.

  1419. That is the problem.
  (Mr Bates) Is it?


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 2 May 2000