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?
|