Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR SEBASTIAN
WOOD AND
MR DENIS
KEEFE
13 JUNE 2006
Q240 Mr Keetch: I am grateful for
that. Can I turn to another aspect of trade and that is the EU
arms embargo with China. As you know, the EU introduced an arms
embargo following the massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Last
year France and Germany sought to try and lift that embargo. The
Foreign Office have told us: "the embargo is largely of symbolic
significance", but all our friends in America tell us that
it is of massive significance and are very concerned that an arms
embargo might be lifted. Do you believe, Foreign Secretary, that
the issue of lifting the arms embargo is likely to come up again
in the near future and what would your position be on lifting
that embargo?
Margaret Beckett: The principal
thing that I could tell you is that there is at present no consensus
within the European Union so it seems to me—and you will
appreciate I speak only from the depth of a few weeks' experience—that
it is not an issue that is likely to be decided in the near future.
Whether it will come up again in the near future is not in my
eye line. I do not know if there is anything you can add?
Mr Wood: It is not a particularly
live subject of debate at the moment.
Margaret Beckett: Because there
is no consensus and things on which there is no consensus tend
to sink below the line.
Q241 Mr Keetch: So far as we can
judge there is no prospect that that embargo will be lifted in
the near future?
Margaret Beckett: I cannot see
it, no.
Chairman: Sandra Osborne?
Q242 Sandra Osborne: Secretary of
State, I would like to start a section of questions relating to
UK engagement with China in relation to business. During this
inquiry we have heard some criticism that there is a lack of a
Whitehall strategy in relation to China, that the respective departments
meet and talk about the bilateral initiatives in relation to China
but not an overall strategy. What would be your response to that?
How is the strategy for China co-ordinated in Whitehall?
Margaret Beckett: I can understand
and it is always the case, is it not, in the business community
there is a tendency to want—and I am not criticising this,
it is a natural tendency and it has merit—one kind of simple
channel, but China, as you have seen for yourselves, is a large
and very complex place and what we have at present is not a plethora
of bodies but we have a number of different bodies, each of whom
play a role which is slightly distinct in the sense of whether
they are most focused on facilitating new starters or networking
for people who are actually operating already in China. It appears
to me from what I experienced before and what I understand to
still be or to again be the case is there is quite a good working,
constructive relationship. They are not competing with each other.
UKTI, for example, shares some of their offices and may do more
in the future. It is not necessarily harmful to have a number
of different routes and avenues as long as we do more, and it
is always necessary to do more, to make clear to people at this
end of things how they can become involved. As to an issue of
Whitehall strategy in departments, again this is something that
one can always say one can improve and we will work on but there
is actually quite a good co-ordination between the different departments
and the involvement of departments working together to support
things like the UK-China Task Force and so on. There is quite
a lot of good engagement. Although I have no doubt that individual
players who are operating in China have got views about how they
would like to see things improved, again my impression is that
between the UK Government and the China Government there is actually
a feeling that things are going really rather better than they
used to and going in the right direction.
Q243 Sandra Osborne: Good. Given
the importance that you yourself have acknowledged of the emergence
of China would you see any increase in diplomatic staff in China?
For example, we have had it suggested that there may be a policy
adopted of bringing in specialists to China on the basis of a
"one day China the next day Brazil" type situation.
What would you foresee as the future of diplomatic involvement
in China?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly
see an increase in staffing for China. I have not come across
the suggestion that there might be a thing about somebody doing
China one day and Brazil the next, but certainly on the trade
side, on the general diplomatic side and so on, we are planning
to step up our engagement in China, which I think the Committee
would wish to see.
Q244 Mr Purchase: Firstly, may I
say I am delighted to see you in such an important position within
the Government. I am confident that your experience and skills
will be fully employed and fully appreciated in the Foreign Office,
so I am delighted to see you there and I hope we have many exchanges
of a constructive nature.
Margaret Beckett: Thank you.
Q245 Mr Purchase: I just want to
ask about the question of support for British business in China.
You will know that there has been considerable criticism that
we lack a strategy concerning trade with China. I wonder how you
answer that and how you would like to see a strategy developing
so that we get full benefit, as you express it, mutually of trade
with China?
Margaret Beckett: As I say, one
can always say that there is room for improvement, but I would
not myself be inclined to accept that there is not a strategy.
I am looking for and inevitably as always failing to find it in
my papers, but there are a number of areas where in trade terms
we have tried to concentrate some of our effort. In other words,
we have not just gone in ad hoc "let's see what happens",
but to see where the UK has strengths and where China has needs
and where those two can be brought together. Pharmaceuticals is
one that springs to mind, IT is another. It does seem to me that
we have done a certain amount of identifying of the priorities.
What I would certainly accept—and it goes back to my answer
I think to Mr Heathcoat-Amory—is that in the past we have
not enjoyed as great a share of trade as one might think judging
from the share we have of investment in China. Again, it is my
understanding that part of the issue has been that the things
that China has most needed in the most recent past have been in
the heavy goods/heavy machinery end of things, where, for good
or ill—and I know you and I share a manufacturing history
and we might regret it—the fact is that these are not areas
where Britain has the strengths that we have had the past. However,
what we are seeing as growing areas of interest and importance
in China are in exactly those areas of services, financial expertise
and so on where we still have major strengths. So on the one hand
there has been some identification of areas where we think we
can make a contribution up to now. There is also an identification
of areas which we think will grow in importance between our two
countries and to which therefore we are putting some effort. I
think that would be my answer to the people who say there is no
strategy and there are not priorities; actually, yes there are
but we always welcome input and advice as to what more and what
better we can do.
Q246 Richard Younger-Ross: Obviously
in the future improving trade with China will be beneficial if
more British businessmen and women spoke Chinese and were more
familiar with the Chinese nation and Chinese state and undertook
Chinese studies. Can you say what you believe the British Government
should be doing to ensure that happens? Would you bear in mind
that in a couple of years' time we have the Beijing Olympics and
the Chinese have initiated a Speak English programme to enable
and make it easier for visitors to Beijing. Should we not reciprocate
with a Speak Chinese programme for the future generation of young
Brits?
Margaret Beckett: I think the
idea of having a Speak Chinese programme is certainly an interesting
one. I know what you mean about the issue of language capacity.
On the last occasion, I think it was, that I was in China I recall
visiting a middle school. It was a language school so presumably
the youngsters who were there had got some evidence of innate
talent but their colloquial English was absolutely incredible.
I am talking about eight, nine, and 12-year-olds. It was quite
amazing, quite intimidating almost. So I take your point entirely
about what is happening in China. In the UK there is a quite substantial
(perhaps not by those standards) and growing area of study. There
is the educational co-operation programme with schools in China.
I was slightly surprised to learn (and I am sure we can do better)
that over 110 primary and secondary schools were linked during
the last full academic year 2004-05. Just under 2,000 15-year-olds
were entered for a GCSE in Chinese in 2005 and just over 1,600
16 to 18-year-olds were entered for a GSCE A level. I take your
point entirely that these are very important skills but I think
it is quite encouraging that we are seeing that growth, and we
are also seeing a growth in studies in Japanese. So in terms of
acceptance and realisation that these are languages which would
be of value, I think we are seeing a growing awareness, although
no doubt we can and will build on that.
Q247 Chairman: Thank you. Can I move
on to the internal politics of China. When we were there just
over two weeks ago, I came across a phrase I had not heard before
which was a GONGO, a government organised non-governmental organisation—
Margaret Beckett: It is a new
concept in fact.
Chairman: We were told very emphatically
that there were almost no non-governmental organisations in China
because of the nature of the law and the constitution, and all
NGOs had to be registered, and had to be, in effect, organised
by the government. This raises a wider issue about civil society,
lack of independent trade unions—
Mr Keetch: Do not tell a Cabinet minister
that!
Q248 Chairman: They may be Lib Dem
policies! I apologise, let us get back to this. In the question
of the nature of Chinese society and party control what can we
do to assist the development of civil society in China in the
sense that we understand it?
Margaret Beckett: I am mindful
of the speech that Jack Straw made, I cannot quite recall when
but not long ago.
Mr Wood: The Smith Institute speech
at the end of April.
Margaret Beckett: And the whole
tenor of his remarks—and it may have been just before you
went out to China—was that China obviously, as we all understand,
is already an economic power house and it will become more so,
but that it is in everybody's interests, including in China's
interests, for that economic development and growth to be matched
by a growth of participation and activity in civil society because
these are the ways in which, especially in a fast-changing economy
and a fast-changing society, sometimes with some difficulty adjustments
are made to take account of the impact of those enormous economic
changes. I think that there are two things we can do. One is to
make that basic case to our Chinese colleagues that this kind
of development is something which is really bound to come with
their economic development and which can be beneficial, and also
of course to offer people opportunities and experience. We have
got this huge number of students from China, as from elsewhere
in East Asia, coming to the United Kingdom and here too they will
experience some of that, and no doubt learn from our mistakes
as well as what we hope are our successes.
Q249 Chairman: Do you think it is
inevitable that economic development leads to development of political
pluralism, free trade unions and multi party candidature at elections?
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not
think it is inevitable that it leads to that but I think it is
inevitable that it leads to change, and if not that kind of change
then perhaps other changes that may be more difficult to handle
and can be more traumatic. I think what I would postulate as inevitable
is that that kind of economic development leads to change in society.
If one wants it to be beneficial change then maybe there is something
to be said for opening up to a degree as a society in the way
that China has opened up as an economy.
Chairman: Can I take you then to questions
about "One Country, Two Systems", the alternative system
which is Hong Kong system. Some questions about Hong Kong from
Ken Purchase please.
Q250 Mr Purchase: Following directly
on from that, Secretary of State, in Hong Kong there have been
several demonstrations, as you know, and proposals made and refused.
How helpful is it for pro-democracy people in Hong Kong to receive
assistance from Britain and America and other countries who may
have an interest in promoting not just a civil society but a pluralistic
political system. How important is it for them? Is it good for
us to try to assist or should we stand back and just watch developments?
Margaret Beckett: I think it depends
on what you mean by should we try to assist. There is the framework
of the basic law in Hong Kong. There is an acceptance of moving
towards, in time, universal suffrage. I know there are differences
of view about the recent proposals. It seemed to us the recent
proposals went somewhere in the right direction. I know there
were differences of view about whether they went far enough and
therefore whether it was worth accepting them and so on, but certainly
there have been some moves there. I do not think anyone is suggesting
that we would be hostile to such activities but whether it helps
or hinders for us or indeed the United States or any other such
players to appear to be visibly involved in some way in pushing
things forward, I think is another issue.
Q251 Mr Purchase: I have in mind
the recent controversies in the former Soviet Union where voluntary
organisations have been materially and in other ways assisted
and that has led to rather more disputes than would have been
helpful. I just wonder whether we could still help but avoid that
kind of controversy.
Margaret Beckett: As you will
know because we have known each other for some years, I am very
much an advocate of doing what is effective rather than what people
would like to see one doing. I take what I think to be your point
entirely, that we should try not to put ourselves in a position
where we do things that make us feel high-minded and allow us
to say we are doing all the right things but which would actually
cause difficulties rather than help to resolve them.
Q252 Mr Keetch: Certainly on the
business side, Foreign Secretary, we were told that the system
of One Country, Two Systems has worked incredibly well from a
British business standpoint there.
Margaret Beckett: And Hong Kong
business too.
Q253 Mr Keetch: And indeed Hong Kong,
absolutely. According to the Heritage Foundation, which is not
a body I would normally quote, since 1995 Hong Kong is ranked
as the freest economy in the world by them. Certainly with its
access into the Pearl River Delta, with its independent judiciary,
common law, et cetera, it is clearly a spring point for British
investment and indeed Hong Kong investment to go into mainland
China. How do you foresee that Britain can support that kind of
investment? Would you encourage British business to take that
route into China with all the obvious benefits it has in terms
of our traditional role in Hong Kong as opposed to a route going
in maybe via Shanghai?
Margaret Beckett: If I can put
aside the issue of Shanghai for a moment, I think it depends on
where they want to go. I do not think there is any doubt if one
is wanting to move into the Pearl River Delta that there is a
huge amount to be said for going in via Hong Kong in a whole variety
of ways, with the experience that can give, with their understanding,
with the links they have (more substantial every day it sometimes
seems) with the mainland. I do not think there is any dispute
about that at all. Equally though, and I am not sure whether I
am really supposed to say this, I remember the first time I went
to Hong Kong being told it was run by the Shanghainese. Sometimes
there would be merit in going in through Shanghai but if one is
involved in other parts of China I would have thought that it
might work to go in through that route but not necessarily. I
think it goes back to the remark I made earlier that it is wise
for us to remember how enormous and complex China is and that
for people wanting to operate in different parts of that enormous
country then Hong Kong may not automatically be the best route.
I do not know if there is anything you want to add.
Mr Wood: The only thing I would
add is that given our obvious business advantages and very well-established
business presence in Hong Kong and the fact that it provides a
level playing field for business, a well-regulated economic environment
with the rule of law, then there are clear advantages for businesses
to use it as a platform for doing business in wider mainland China.
That is why we decided to take a long hard look at the possibilities
for doing that and launched the UK/Hong Kong business partnership
some years ago, which has been working with the authorities in
Hong Kong, with our own authorities, and British businesses specifically
to identify the possibilities in this area.
Q254 Mr Keetch: Foreign Secretary,
when you said very welcomely earlier that Britain was looking
to expand our diplomatic representation and our influence across
China, I presume we can take it that that will not be in any way
at the expense of our post in Hong Kong, for the record?
Margaret Beckett: No, we are not
intending to do that. Perhaps I ought to make it clear; we are
not necessarily talking about setting up any new posts but expanding
personnel and staff where we are. We have looked at it and think
that probably we are in enough of the right places but that there
is more that we can do if we have more people.
Q255 Mr Keetch: Certainly the Hong
Kong post would not in any way be reduced as part of that?
Margaret Beckett: I have not seen
any suggestion that that should be done.
Mr Keetch: I am grateful.
Chairman: Sir John Stanley?
Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
I am sure you attach, like the Committee, profound importance
to freedom of expression in general and freedom of the media in
particular. I have with me the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
publication entitled Handbook for Foreign Correspondents in
China, running to a total of 53 pages and included within
it there are specified regulations concerning foreign journalists,
including a number of potential catch-all offences. I read one,
for example, under article 14: "Foreign journalists and permanent
offices of foreign news agencies shall observe journalistic ethics
and shall not distort facts, fabricate rumours or carry out news
coverage by foul means."
Mr Purchase: Can we have that here?
Q256 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
I hope you will resist the enthusiasm from the Government members
of the Committee for these restrictions here.
Margaret Beckett: I thought it
was cross party actually!
Mr Keetch: You are giving her ideas!
Q257 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
I am sure that you would agree that these types of catch-all offences,
coupled with a whole panoply of requirements for approval before
reporting, approvals before getting interviews, and approvals
for travel, are wholly incompatible with a proper attitude towards
journalists in a modern state and in a state which has been invited
to host the Olympic Games. Will you tell the Committee what steps
the British Government will take to try to persuade the Government
of China to strip away this wholly antiquated raft of restrictions
on the media in China and try to ensure that we get somewhere
closer in China to the freedom of expression and the freedom of
the media that we have in this country?
Margaret Beckett: More seriously,
Sir John, of course I do take entirely the point that you make
and I do understand the concern that you have expressed. We are
of course committed to a media being able to operate without artificial
restrictions. You ask me what we can do to help and of course
we have a human rights dialogue, as you will know, with the Chinese
Government which takes place on a regular and a constructive basis
where we explore and exchange our concerns. Also of course we
do have a number of practical projects operating in China with
regard to the courts, training for judges and so on, and also
with regard to the news media for, I believe, journalists and
also those who deal with the news media. What we seek to do through
that is indeed to convey the notion of the role—and we talked
before about trying to encourage greater openness in society—that
a responsible media can play which can indeed be beneficial in
terms of exposing and exploring areas where things have gone wrong,
for example the handling of contracts and things of that kind,
and there can be a benefit in having a media which is able to
explore some of these issues—benefits to government as well
as to society as a whole.
Q258 Sir John Stanley: Do you agree
that the forthcoming Olympic Games in which the Chinese Government
is going to be host to hundreds, possibly thousands of additional
foreign journalists, provides a golden opportunity for concerted
pressure worldwide for the People's Republic of China to bring
its handling and attitudes towards journalists up-to-date and
to the levels that we would regard as being acceptable in our
own society?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly
think that there will be a huge plethora of changes and impacts
that hosting the Olympic Games will bring, and I hope that all
of them will be beneficial.
Q259 Chairman: Can I take you to
a related area which is the human rights dialogue in which we
have been engaged with in the Chinese Government for many years
and the related European Union dialogue with the Chinese. It has
been put to us in evidence that these are a kind of window-dressing
exercise which in effect does not have much impact. How do you
respond to that?
Margaret Beckett: Well, to be
honest, that tends always to be said, does it not, on these occasions
because obviously such dialogues take place, relatively speaking,
behind the scenes and there tends to be an assumption that they
have not had enough impact unless everything is put right. From
our perspective, this does represent a worthwhile engagement.
We do believe that we see gradual movement and greater recognition
of some of the concerns, and of course we are now involved—and
I am not quite sure what the timeline of this is, when did we
get involved with the Berne Group?
Mr Wood: The Berne Group has existed
for some time.
Margaret Beckett: Has there been
more active involvement more recently?
Mr Wood: But over the last few
months we have been concerting—
Margaret Beckett: We and others
who are members of the Berne Group have become more actively involved
in sharing information, co-ordinating our efforts, precisely so
that, first, we have got a better picture of what the problems
are and, second, that we think we can have and we do get some
indication that we are having greater impact in that respect.
I think I saw a reference to some evidence that you had from one
of the human rights representative groups in Hong Kong.
| 
