Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2003
DR BRYAN
WELLS, COLONEL
PHILIP ROUSE
AND MS
KATE SMITH
Mr Cran
40. The second part of the Bill it seems allows
for any further amendments to the CFE treaty to be implemented
by secondary legislation. Am I correct about that? Secondly, does
that not also limit the ability of the House of Commons or Parliament
generally to consider the amendments?
(Ms Smith) Yes, you are right. Clause Two allows further
amendments relating to inspections to be carried out by Order
in Council. In the House of Lords we sent a memorandum on this
to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Committee and their reply
concluded: "In view of the limited nature of the power and
the fact that it would be subject to affirmative procedure, we
consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate."
41. All opposition in the House of Lords dissipated?
(Ms Smith) Yes.
42. Why was it that FCO ministers were not originally
able to put the human rights certificate on the Bill? I understand
it was subsequently rectified but why did that occur?
(Ms Smith) As far as I am aware, I think it was just
a procedural matter. It was not a problem with the substance at
all.
43. No malice aforethought?
(Ms Smith) No.
Chairman
44. Would you check that out for us?
(Ms Smith) Certainly.
Rachel Squire
45. Picking up on some of your comments about
NATO, can you first of all say what are the prospects of the adapted
treaty being extended to cover the countries of the Balkans and
the Baltics?
(Dr Wells) One of the benefits of the adapted treaty
is that it does provide for new members to join the treaty provisions.
First of all, we must get compliance to the Istanbul commitments.
Then the existing 30 Member States can ratify the new treaty and
the treaty can enter into force. Then we can start to consider
collectively any applicants who wish to join the adapted treaty.
The Baltic states have indicated that they would wish to join
the treaty and there would have to be a negotiation between the
countries individually and the existing 30 Member States on national
ceilings to treaty limited equipment and territorial ceilings.
There is quite a process to go through but we do recognise that
this provision in the adapted treaty to bring on members is very
attractive.
46. Was there discussion with the applicants
to NATO from the Balkans and the Baltic states prior to confirmation
of who was going to be invited to join at the Prague summit?
(Dr Wells) NATO has consistently said that there is
no linkage between enlargement of the alliance and membership
of the CFE or adapted CFE because that would in effect give a
power of veto to non-NATO members in terms of NATO membership.
Consequently, there is no linkage between membership of the alliance
or of the treaty.
47. It sounds as though those countries like
Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states will now be part of the
process of working towards their final membership.
(Dr Wells) Romania and Bulgaria are already members
of the current CFE treaty. The position is really in relation
to the three Baltic states. It would be beneficial for the Baltic
states to be members of the adapted CFE treaty in its own right
because of the transparency that that would provide on the use
of treaty limited equipment in that area. That would be of benefit
to all Member States.
48. How would further, additional countries
be accommodated in the adapted treaty? Would their equipment ceilings
have to be taken from those of the existing parties?
(Colonel Rouse) The equipment ceilings of new states
joining the adapted CFE treaty would have to be negotiated by
the adapted CFE treaty members with the joining states at the
time. A judgment would be made about the ceilings and the limits
of the various categories of equipment, based on circumstances
at the time. It will be done on a case by case basis as each state
joins the adapted CFE treaty.
Jim Knight
49. Was there any consideration given to some
kind of sunset clause or a requirement to renew the legislation
in some way because of the possibility that this could drag on
for ever? It is an international treaty and perhaps we should
make sure that it is properly scrutinised if time has dragged
on for so long. I wondered if there was any consideration given,
when you were putting the Bill together, to some kind of mechanism
that allows the legislation to form a renewal requirement so that
we can enshrine on the face of the Bill the guarantee that we
can have another look at it if too much time has elapsed.
(Ms Smith) The consideration that we had to bear in
mind was about the outstanding Istanbul commitments. The position
is that we would like to see these commitments fulfilled in full
as agreed at Istanbul in 1999. The basis for that is the principle
of host nation consent and that is what is really important to
us and why we have attached so much emphasis to the fulfilment
of those commitments. Should there come a time when Russia and
the two states concerned, Georgia and Moldova, can come to an
agreement which respects that principle but perhaps is not to
the letter of the commitments agreed at Istanbul, we would consider
favourable ratification in that situation. It is because we cannot
envisage exactly what those circumstances might be that we could
not set out precisely what would trigger ratification.
50. Let us say it is 10 or 15 years hence. This
legislation is on the statute books. We achieve a position whereby
we can ratify it but it is a long time since Parliament had a
look at it and it may be that Parliament would think it is worth
having something on the Bill that allows us to have certainty
that the minister has to come back and test opinion in Parliament.
(Ms Smith) I would have thought that if that sort
of period of time had elapsed that would be more reason for ministers
to consider it favourably.
51. In terms of inspection obligations currently
for us, under the CFE treaty states are already liable to host
inspections. Can you tell us a little about what sort of burden
it is for the MoD and other agencies when we host an inspection
here in the UK and how closely do the inspectors look? How disruptive
are they and so on?
(Dr Wells) Under the current CFE treaty, inspections
come in two sorts, a section VII inspection of a declared site
and a section VIII inspection, which is called a challenge inspection.
Under a section VII or a declared site inspection, a declared
site is a site that is declared by states parties that contains
one or more Objects of Verification, as we term it. The site could
be a garrison, a barracks, an air base or depot that contains
treaty limited equipment. Under a section VII inspection, there
is a team of nine inspectors and it can last up to 10 days during
which the inspection team, which can in turn be divided into three
sub-teams, can conduct a series of declared site inspections.
Each of these declared site inspections may last up to 48 hours
and can be undertaken from the ground or the air. The section
VIII or challenge inspection is an inspection within a specified
area on the territory of a states' party to a maximum size of
65 square kilometres. Specified area inspections can last no longer
than 24 hours. Any declared sites that are within the specified
area are specifically excluded from the inspection. In terms of
our liability to host such inspections, we declare a total of
119 Objects of Verification and we are liable to host inspections
of 15% of those Objects of Verification in any one year. That
currently comes to 18 inspections of which three can be section
VIII. That is our total liability. It is fair to say that that
liability has not been taken up to the full in the UK in recent
years, although it has been in Germany.
52. Why has it not been taken up here? Is that
because there is nothing to worry about?
(Dr Wells) I would expect that Member States' priorities
are on verifications elsewhere in the CFE area.
53. Is Germany the only one you can think of
where they have been fully taken up?
(Dr Wells) For the UK forces, that is correct, yes.
Chairman
54. Who do they report to when they have completed
an inspection if they wish to complain?
(Colonel Rouse) When the inspection takes place, they
produce a report and that report is then filed with the OSCE at
the Joint Consultative Group. If there was a complaint or a query,
it would be raised at the Joint Consultative Group in Vienna.
55. How many times has that process been activated
and what happens afterwards? Is it just a slap on the wrist or
do they have to explain why the treaty limited items have suddenly
appeared?
(Colonel Rouse) To my knowledge, it happens relatively
frequently that there is an observation of some sort. It is normally
a fairly minor observation, something to do, for example, with
denial by the inspected state on the use of photography or some
minor infringement of the treaty protocol. To my knowledge, recently
there has not been a major objection resulting from either a section
VII or a section VIII inspection.
Jim Knight
56. I have scan read the protocol. You are informed
by an inspecting state that they want to have a look. They let
you know who is coming and you facilitate the visit, give them
a helicopter if they need one and they come and take some photographs
and poke their noses around?
(Colonel Rouse) It is a little more formal than that
but broadly speaking yes. They have to give us a minimum of 36
hours' notice before they come. There are quite strict point of
entry regulations and there is a strict protocol in terms of getting
the inspection underway. Before they arrive, we do not know where
they want to inspect. That is only announced at the time of their
arrival. Under the treaty, we have six hours to prepare the site
for their inspection. They go along; they do the inspection within
the time frame described by Dr Wells and then they produce their
report.
57. They can look at anything?
(Dr Wells) Subject to the caveats that I mentioned
earlier about where inspections could be refused for force
majeure or for sensitive site reasons, yes.
58. The MoD can cope with the current level
of inspection because they are not fulfilling all 21 that they
could do, but it is not an undue burden on you to go up to the
21?
(Dr Wells) It is 18 under the current treaty, of which
three are section VIII inspections.
Chairman
59. The time available gives any country ample
time to get its iffy material well off site. If they cannot, there
is something wrong with their organisation. Is there any way you
can get round that or any way you can guard against somebody pulling
a fast one by shifting a number of tanks if there is an excess?
You can get most tanks, bar Challenger Is, a long distance inside
36 hours.
(Dr Wells) The declared sites that are inspected will
have a time of six hours before the inspection[9]
The whole philosophy of the CFE treaty is transparency. It is
also trust. It is a confidence and security building measure so
we trust Member States. We are verifying the holdings of treaty
limited equipment that they have already declared.
9 Note from Witness: Declared sites are informed
six hours before an inspection. A states party will be informed
36 hours in advance that an inspection is taking place on its
territory. Back
| 
