Examination of witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2000
THE RT
HON RICHARD
CABORN, MR
VIVIAN BROWN
and MR JOHN
R WEISS
Chairman
1. May I say thank you very much, Minister,
for coming to see us this morning to give us evidence on ECGD.
These are very familiar surroundings to you, so I do not have
to ask you to feel comfortable because I have no doubt you do,
but we do want to explore with you, particularly ECGD in all aspects;
so we thought we would use, first of all, as a case study to introduce
all our other questions, the Ilisu Dam in Turkey. I understood
that you might wish to make just a very brief introductory statement.
You are very welcome to do so.
(Mr Caborn) Thank you very much, Chairman. It used
to be a lot better, I can assure you, when I was that side of
the table rather than this side of the table. I used to love it
when I was a Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry
but things move on. Thank you very much for the invitation. May
I introduce Vivian Brown, who is the Chief Executive, and John
Weiss, who is Director of Underwriting, at ECGD. If there are
any technical questions, I have no doubt that they will be able
to give you the answers. It is good if we can, as you rightly
said, deal with the Ilisu Dam question, and then go into the wider
issues which we have in the ECGD because it covers a much wider
field. I think the Committee is more interested in its approach
to environmental matters—good governance, bribery and corruption—which
are areas that you have had under scrutiny. Human rights, transparency
and accountability again are issues which are taken up in our
main report. On the Ilisu Dam specifically, I think Stephen Byers
and myself have made our concerns very clear about the project,
particularly in the areas of the resettlement which we think are
very important. There are also questions about the provision of
upstream water treatment plants to ensure that the water quality
is maintained. We need to ensure that adequate downstream water
flows will remain contained. There are concerns also about the
preservation of the political and cultural heritage. We are very
clear about the nature of this project that is actually under
discussion. I think you know in Helsinki, a few weeks ago, that
Turkey was accepted as an accession country into the European
Union. It also has a fast growing economy. At the moment, it has
a major deficit in its indigenous power supply. Therefore, it
is looking to increase that power capacity. At the moment, it
uses about 15 per cent of what an average western European country
would use, taking the figures from the OECD. So you have a country
which is clearly going to grow. Its application has been accepted
by the European Union to come into the European Union itself,
and indeed it is trying now to construct itself in terms of its
power supply. I want to make it perfectly clear, because there
has been some misinformation about this, the Ilisu is a hydro-electric
project. It is not irrigation. That is fundamental when we are
talking about the downstream supply of water, both into Turkey
and into other countries as well. It offers the opportunity to
provide a source of clean, renewable energy, and to diversify
Turkey's source of energy. That will reduce the dependency on
fossil fuels, which have to be imported and produce greenhouse
gases, reducing also the incentive to build nuclear power plants.
You may want to see, Chairman, (I think it was an article in the
FT last week), that there are now very active discussions
in terms of closing the energy gap of Turkey, into moving into
nuclear power. Now, I do not want to make any comments about that,
at this stage, but what has been said does raise some concerns
when Turkey had two earthquakes last year, and nuclear power is
somewhat questionable in closing that energy supply path. The
importance of that is the quality of type of construction which
is done. I want to put on record that when Thames Water again
was supported by ECGD, we were involved in the Izmit Water Project.
That was a pure damming of the water but indeed was on the fault-line
of the earthquake. That held during that earthquake. All I point
out to the Committee is that the quality of the construction in
countries like this can be very important indeed. Whilst there
are still checks being done on the pipes and the water supply
under that dam, in terms of the craftsmanship and the safety standards
and quality of construction that was done in that particular project,
this places credit to the United Kingdom. I also want to stress
very clearly that we have not yet made a decision on whether ECGD
can support this particular project. We do not know precisely
what conditions will emerge from the dialogue with ECGD and our
other partners in this project, as far as their Export Credit
Agencies are concerned. Indeed, discussions are going on now.
When we can see what conditions are necessary in light of that
dialogue, we will look at how these might be monitored and what
right of redress there might be. In the light of this we might
decide whether to go ahead. We expect to make a final decision
within a few months, when we have seen the final environmental
appraisal, which we are still waiting for. We have already published
this, as you know, and this Committee should have copies of material
about the project and the updated environmental impact assessment,
which will also be released when that is available. Our aim for
Government is for ECGD to work with the Turkish authorities and
for the Export Credit Agencies to agree, if possible, acceptable
terms, which both meet our concerns and facilitate the export.
I hope people have had a copy of the reports we have done. We
were asked, as you know, to have an independent report, particularly
around the resettlement and social dislocation which takes place
in a project of this nature. That is available and also the first
environmental impact assessment, which was also put into the public
domain towards the end of January. Again, people should have those.
Further evidence has come to light so we are having a further
report on that. I think that will probably be ready around April/May
time of this year. It will be based upon all this information
and we will then make it available, but our position is very clear
as far as Ilisu is concerned.
Chairman: I am sure the Committee is
very glad to learn from you that you have not yet made a decision.
I think we have also gathered from your statement why you were
minded to make a positive decision. May we explore this on an
objective basis because I know the Committee has many concerns.
I am going to ask Mrs Clwyd to lead us on these questions. Mrs
Clwyd.
Ann Clwyd
2. Minister, I think you would agree that it
is a highly controversial project. Can you confirm that there
have been disagreements between the various departments of government.
There are reports even of a Cabinet split on this particular issue.
(Mr Caborn) The answer to that is that there has been
no Cabinet split. These decisions are controversial when they
actually start hitting the press in the way this one has done.
Certain television programmes take them up and therefore they
go to public debate. That is absolutely right. That is part of
the democratic structure but there are some very important issues.
We take 200 decisions a year on ECGD, four a week, not of the
nature of this but of importance to the nation. So there has been
a political split on this. There have been the normal concerns
which have been expressed, which I have expressed here. Conditions
have been laid down which would normally go round Whitehall, but
there has not been a major split, far from a Cabinet split, I
can assure you. There has been the normal dialogue which takes
place on issues such as this which, by their very nature, can
be controversial.
3. I attempted to get this report from the Library
last night, Stakeholders' Attitudes to Involuntary Resettlement
in the Context of the Ilisu Dam Project. I was told that I
could not take it out of the Library. In fact, it is marked confidential.
I was allowed to take it out because I was bringing it here to
this Committee, so I have to say I have not had time to read it
apart from the summary. I would like to know what your understanding
is of this. Is it confidential or is it supposed to be freely
available?
(Mr Caborn) It is on the website so it is in the public
domain. We put it in the public domain on 21 December, which we
said we would do when my predecessor, Brian Wilson, made the announcement
about this report. We have just done that. We put it on the website.
As far as I understand it, it went into the Library of the House
of Commons on 21 December.
4. Anyway, there is obviously a misunderstanding
because the Library would not let it out.
(Mr Caborn) We will follow that up. It is on the website,
so you can access it there, but I will make sure that it is available.
We said it would be available to Members.[3]
5. In the summary of recommendations arising
from this report, first of all, I would like to know how many
people were involved in preparing the report, who they were, and
over what period of time. One of the points I picked up from it
were that local stakeholders, that is, people affected by the
development, have been waiting for more than 20 years to be informed
directly about resettlement, despite the fact that the project
design was approved by the Government in 1982. International guidelines
clearly specify that planning for the involvement of different
stakeholders should start as early as possible in the project
cycle. They have lost 20 years. That cannot be satisfactory.
(Mr Caborn) It is far from satisfactory, I would totally
agree with that. When Dr Morvaridi went out there on our behalf,
who is a Turkish national, a very respected professor, (the report
is there), he raised a number of those concerns. Now, one can
look back historically and say things should have happened, that
is true, and indeed what has happened today has been unsatisfactory.
But when we received that report, the first thing I called for
was the OECD guidelines on resettlement, to have a look at those.
Indeed, you have to remember that Turkey is a member of the OECD
as well. It is not the guidelines in terms of the ECGD but in
terms of aid. It was a reasonable starting point to have a look
at, particularly when we have all signed up as OECD members. If
you look at guideline number 3, guidelines for involuntary displacement
and resettlement in these projects, then it lays down very clearly
the conditions of that. I thought that was no bad starting point.
When I discussed it with the author of that report, he said that
would be the case. That was why Stephen Byers, the Secretary of
State, in the first conditions which have to be met—there
are at least these standards laid down and in broad terms from
the OECD which ought to be met—I think you will find that
they have heeded that and have now started moving in that direction.
Indeed, they have put out an independent assessment of the resettlement.
We are asking that this be clearly monitored as the thing goes
through and these are areas which we will be looking at very carefully
before we give our final decision.
6. But can you tell me how long it took to gather
the data in this report. One of the points they make in the summary
is: "Constraints on the gathering of data. With the rapid
nature of the field visit and restricted access to some of the
affected areas due to local security issues, vast populations
could not be interviewed as they have not yet been identified
by the resettlement co-ordinators." That sounds rather strange.
(Mr Caborn) I spent a considerable amount of time
with the author of this report to make sure of (a) his intelligence
gathered in this report and (b) his opinions of it, and was there
a way forward? That is what we did in the report; that is what
is in the public domain. That is what it is there for: to inform
the debate; to have an intelligent debate about these issues.
I go back to the point that Turkey is a changing country. It has
now made its accession into the European Union and that has been
accepted. It is an economy which is going to grow. It has a major
deficit in terms of its energy supply and it is going to resolve
it. Are we part of that solution or are we not? Do we allow them
to go down the nuclear road or do we try to influence them into
fossil fuel? Or do we look at these issues as they are with that
type of background? I think it is incumbent upon a British Government
of this nature that we look at this objectively. That is why we
did this report. We had no need to do it but we have done that.
We have put it into the public domain. It is informing that debate
and from that we are now looking at areas which we believe need
to be explored further to meet the concerns that came out of this
report.
Chairman
7. Minister, we must stick to the question of
this particular dam. I do not think we can be diverted into nuclear
possibilities or alternatives. Otherwise, we will not get through
our business. Mrs Clwyd asked you, and you have not yet answered
the question, as to how many people undertook this report.
(Mr Caborn) It was largely the professor.
8. He alone? One man?
(Mr Caborn) He alone, one man. He speaks the language.
He was there. His report is here. I am informed that he was in
Turkey for just over ten days.
Ann Clwyd
9. This region of Turkey, as we all know, has
seen considerable political turmoil, with a long running conflict
between the Turkish Government and the Kurds, particularly in
that area. There have been repeated accusations of human rights
violations. I wondered what assessment you had made so far of
the human rights situation in this part of Turkey. What assessment
has been made of the impact of the dam on the conflict in the
region? What account does ECGD take of human rights and the situation
of minority groups when considering support for projects like
this?
(Mr Caborn) We take human rights very seriously indeed.
In fact, the people who disabuse human rights, the record is there
that we would not be supporting that type of regime. Clearly the
criteria is laid down for that. In terms of this particular project
and its downstream effects, again I go back to what I said earlier.
This is a hydro dam. Once that is filled then the water will continue
to flow through. That is not for irrigation. There will obviously
be problems in terms of filling that dam. Again, we will want
to make sure that the conditions prevailing are ones which would
not seriously disrupt the dam flow. We will also make sure that
when the water is upstream, that this is also part of the conditions
as well. Therefore, we believe that is the right way forward.
10. May I ask you again what assessment you
have made of the human rights situation in this region.
(Mr Caborn) In terms of making an assessment around
the Ilisu Dam, we have taken what is the normal intelligence,
which is fed into the Foreign Office. They have been consulted
on this, as indeed all the government departments have been consulted
in the normal way. Nobody has raised a question as far as ECGD
cover is concerned. Remember, that is the point we are dealing
with. There are others who make those assessments. There is nobody
who has come back and raised the human rights question in terms
of this dam and the awarding of ECGD cover.
11. That sounds, I have to say, remarkably complacent
because anyone who knows that region, I have been there myself,
knows that it is a hot-bed of dispute between the Turkish Government
and the Kurdish population. The human rights violations have been
well documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
Kurdish human rights groups and so on. I really do want to know
what impact you think a resettlement on this scale of tens of
thousands of people is going to make on that very volatile situation
in that part of Turkey.
(Mr Caborn) We have done an independent report. It
is there in the public domain. Based on that report there are
certain recommendations and areas which ought to have serious
consideration. We have given those. We have quantified those.
We have said the four areas where we believe further action needs
to be taken before we could grant ECGD cover, and that is being
done with our other six partners. In terms of human rights, you
asked me the question and I have given you the answer. We circulate,
as a Government, around Whitehall. The DTI is not responsible
for human rights. It will take the advice of other government
departments. I would say, to the best of my knowledge, that this
was not a question which was raised when we circulated to other
departments. That is DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
and indeed others. It was not raised to the best of my knowledge.
Chairman
12. Did you circulate your memorandum to the
Department for International Development?
(Mr Caborn) Absolutely.
13. And they raised no issues of human rights?
(Mr Caborn) I have not been in this job for the whole
of this report, so I will defer to my officials to make sure that
what I am saying is absolutely correct, because I did not start
the report, it was my predecessor, Mr Brian Wilson.
(Mr Brown) There were two senses in which we consulted
other government departments. First, when Mr Caborn's predecessor,
Mr Wilson, decided that we should have an independent report.
We consulted other departments on the terms of reference for that
report. The award of that was a consultancy short-term contract
to Dr Morvaridi. When Dr Morvaridi returned from his ten-day visit
to south east Turkey, we had also made arrangements with the Turkish
authorities to give him access to the local population. I think
he was satisfied with the access that he had, although he never
thought it was perfect in terms of the full amount of information
he had. He then produced a draft report which we discussed with
other departments. He came to ECGD's headquarters and gave officials
a presentation before we put the draft report to Ministers. DFID
were invited to that meeting.
14. May I ask you whether your consultant is
a Kurd or what part of Turkey he comes from.
(Mr Caborn) He is a United Kingdom national.
Ann Clwyd
15. British.
(Mr Caborn) Yes.
Chairman
16. In the context of Turkey, it is extremely
important, of course, that you know the background of the people
you are introducing as consultants. As far as I can gather, you
have made no assessment.
(Mr Caborn) I do not know whether that would be fair.
I cannot answer those questions because I was not in the Ministry
at the time, but if we cannot get the answer I will make sure
that we write to you and tell you exactly what the process is
of this assignment.[4]
17. Because this area is a scene of serious
conflict in Turkey. The report itself, as Mrs Clwyd has demonstrated,
is actually very superficial and very short and I am not certain
that you, Minister, have been advised very accurately, as a result,
on human rights issues.
(Mr Caborn) May I repeat again. I do know the procedures
in terms of consulting other departments of state who have responsibilities
for the question of human rights and, indeed, any infringement
on that. We have circulated all the documents. All the government
departments have been fully involved at official level for the
setting up of the report itself, the process of the report, and
reporting to Ministers. All I can say is that while I have been
a Minister the question of human rights has not been raised in
the context of the Ilisu Dam.
18. It is just as well that you are coming in
front of a select committee which does have other knowledge and
sometimes more knowledge than the officers in the Civil Service
whom you have consulted. So perhaps we can help you make a good
assessment of this, independent of the Civil Service.
(Mr Caborn) You know my attitude on select committees.
I think they are an extremely important scrutiny of the Executive.
I think you know that.
Chairman: Yes, I do.
Ann Clwyd
19. May I ask Mr Brown a question before I finish.
I asked the Minister that question, but I think I should ask you
at ECGD. What account does ECGD take of human rights and the situation
of minority groups when considering support for such a project
because, after all, potential conflict in any area of the world
surely must be a consideration for any government department proposing
to assist projects in those areas?
(Mr Brown) Three ways, Mrs Clwyd. The first is where
human rights lead to sanctions against countries, when ECGD will
not provide cover. So there are a number of countries which fall
into that category. Secondly, as we may come on to discuss later
in the session this morning, we make an assessment of the credit
worthiness of individual countries, which is looking at a wide
range of social as well as economic and political factors. Human
rights is undoubtedly one of the issues that we consider when
we decide whether or not we can provide medium term cover for
particular countries. Thirdly, when we are looking at individual
projects such as this one, we will try to take account of a whole
range of factors, which influence the feasibility and the viability
of that project. As the Minister has said, the question of human
rights was not one of the issues which was raised directly by
the other government departments, with whom we are discussing
the report by Dr Morvaridi. Perhaps I should take the opportunity
of saying something about Dr Morvaridi's own credentials. He is
a United Kingdom national but he is a fluent Turkish speaker.
He is very familiar with the south eastern part of Turkey. That
was very much the reason why we appointed him; also, given his
own academic credentials.
3 See Evidence p. 38. Back
4
See Evidence p. 38. Back
|
