Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-72)
25 FEBRUARY 2004
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR EDWARD
OAKDEN CMG AND
MR DAVID
LANDSMAN
Q60 Mr Battle: If I could follow up the
question of my colleague on the International Development Select
Committee, Tony Baldry, this morning he and I met the Finnish
minister who is responsible, interestingly, for trade and industry
and development, in other words, development criteria are integrated
into their trade and industry department, and in August 2002 our
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to criterion
8 of the Consolidated Criteria, suggesting that we should take
account of the fiscal implications of the export of arms, small
arms in particular, and light weapons. In assessing export licence
applications, especially for small arms and light weapons, against
criterion 8 of the Consolidated Criteria, how are possible human
security impacts factored into the assessment so that there is
a real development assessment built into the process?
Mr Oakden: I am very sorry. I
am not sure I understand the question.
Mr Straw: I half understand the
point of the question, Mr Battle.
Q61 Mr Battle: Under the Consolidated
Criteria, article 8—
Mr Straw: We know all about that.
Q62 Mr Battle: It is fiscal, so it just
assesses the money. What about the impact on the people in poor
countries? Why is that not factored in? Would that make it clearer?
Mr Straw: I think it is inherently
in article 8, is it not?
Q63 Mr Battle: So they are factored in?
Mr Straw: Yes.
Mr Oakden: Human rights are in
criterion 2.
Mr Straw: These are not mutually
exclusive. I think we need to follow this up in some more detail,
but criterion 2 is in respect of human rights and fundamental—
Q64 Mr Battle: Criterion 8. You apply
them all across the board?
Mr Straw: We apply them all together.
Criterion 8 is an addition which has specific relevance in respect
of developing countries, the HIPC and other countries on the OECD
international aid list, but it does not mean that we ignore the
other seven; far from it.
Q65 Ann Clwyd: Prior scrutiny: it has
been around a long time and I have got a feeling that it has been
kicked into the long grass, and I would have hoped that by now
all government departments who are involved in this discussion
might have come up with a proposal which would be mutually acceptable,
maybe on a trial basis, but at least a proposal, because we have
talked about this long enough and we should have come to a decision
by now.
Mr Straw: I understand your concern
here. It is a really difficult issue and the more one goes into
it the more difficult it becomes. On many issues the reverse is
the case. We have actively been looking within government at ways
of enhancing retrospective scrutiny and my colleague Patricia
Hewitt is due to write to me very shortly with proposals on this.
I am sorry that the proposals are not before the committee and
were not before the committee in advance of this hearing, but
that is the current situation. A great deal of work has gone on
inside government on this, let me say. Whether the result is regarded
as satisfactory is another matter.
Q66 Ann Clwyd: The answer is no to that
because this committee has discussed it long and hard. We have
made proposals, counter proposals; we have had discussions with
various secretaries of state, and I personally am fed up of talking
about prior scrutiny and would like us to come to some arrangement
which could be temporary, could be permanent, but at least a proposal
that we can work from.
Mr Straw: For the time being the
straightforward answer is that I do not hold out a prospect of
that happening given the decisions which have been made across
government. What we are aiming to do, however, is to enhance retrospective
scrutiny; that is the official position. I also say, and I understand
your concern here, that it does need to be borne in mind that
this system that we have in the UK is a better, more effective,
more thorough system than any in the world, and I include in that
the United States. It really does do the job. Of course, it could
be enhanced, and we are looking to that but, compared with most
other country systems, it is certainly a Jaguar—the car,
not the aircraft—and approaching a Rolls Royce.
Q67 Ann Clwyd: I think retrospective
scrutiny, as you have illustrated this afternoon, is not satisfactory
to this committee.
Mr Straw: You and I have discussed
this and I have been reasonably open-minded about the issue of
prior scrutiny, but you do then run into the undergrowth about
constitutional arrangements, who is making the decisions, how
that would operate and so on, whether it would lead to a blurring
of lines. I just have to say to the committee that the fact that
the criteria exist first of all, the fact that you exist, the
fact that we now have legislation in place and that there is this
annual outing for me before the committee and much else besides,
really raises the standard of scrutiny, both by officials and
by ministers, including myself. We all have to pay attention—quite
right too, because that is what you are here for and what I am
here for, but if this system did not exist I believe that there
would inevitably be a lower standard applied to the decisions.
As it is I think it is a pretty high standard.
Q68 Mr O'Neill: You will appreciate,
Foreign Secretary, that it is rather frustrating for us because,
as we get closer to the general election, we tend to find that
the secretaries of state become more sympathetic to our position
and then, as soon as the general election occurs, the fledgling
secretaries of state and foreign secretaries come into office
and they are immediately got at by their officials and so, for
a period of about two and a half years, they walk around gagged
and blindfolded, Guantanamo Bay-style, and they get some sense
that there may be a world out there. This is the frustration we
feel.
Mr Straw: It is not usually a
description offered me, but in my case the record shows the reverse,
I am afraid.
Q69 Mr O'Neill: You mean it has got worse?
Mr Straw: I would not put it as
worse but, anyway, it is for you to go through the historical
record on this. There will be movement, as Patricia's letter will
show. It is not as much movement, I know, as the committee wants,
but there we are. I am not sure my officials would say that I
go around the Foreign Office being bound and gagged, dragging
the leg irons of which Mr Chidgey would disapprove.
Q70 Chairman: After that scurrilous attack
on the officials—
Mr Straw: Can I, Dr Berry, just
before we finish, and entirely on a light note, say that I was
noting yesterday that we are three days off 28 February 2004,
which will be the 30th anniversary of an event in which Sir John
and I both took part, namely, the election in Tonbridge and Malling,
which he won and in which I came third.
Chairman: A brief right of reply.
Q71 Sir John Stanley: On the Foreign
Secretary's comments, may I congratulate him on subsequently rising
to a higher state in politics than I have ever managed to do.
Mr Straw: Thank you very much;
that is very generous!
Q72 Chairman: Foreign Secretary, I am
aware of the fact that time is rapidly running out and I know
that colleagues have also got other engagements. If you are agreeable,
there may have been one or two questions in confidential session
and, if it will be all right, we will put those in writing and
look forward to written replies, hopefully not contentious but
some information may be confidential. If we could do it that way
I would be grateful. Could I thank you very much, and your two
officials—or slightly more than two officials, actually;
the last count we made was 14.
Mr Straw: It is they who provided
the encyclopaedia.
Chairman: Thank you very much again.
We are very grateful for your time.
| 
