Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 345)
THURSDAY 8 JUNE 2006
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR JIM
DRUMMOND AND
MR PHIL
EVANS
Q340 Chairman:
We are perhaps getting towards the end of this, but in the context
of the DRC the ironic situation is that it is at the same time
the richest country in Africa but it is probably theoretically,
potentially the poorest country in Africa for most of the people
and that is partly because it has been plundered by the neighbours
and partly because outside agencies do not trade in the commodities.
The UN Panel of Experts' Report in 2003 encouraged donor governments
to investigate companies in their own countries who may be involved,
and the UK Government has not done that, is that something which
may yet be done or is it something you do not intend to do? What
is the status of that?
Hilary Benn: DRC's GDP per head
is currently about $100, so it is pretty poor on that measure.
You are right, Chairman, about the scale of the wealth and what
has happened to it. We have had very little capacity to do that.
Having taken some interest in the Panel Report, I think the point
I would make is when one reads it there were a lot of concerns
expressed, things said about what people had been doing, but in
many cases not much in the way of evidence. I suppose that begs
the question if that is what the Panel has been able to come up
with, with all the work, time and effort that it has been able
to put into the task, in a country as complex as the DRC, where
rumour and speculation is rife on a whole range of fronts, how
exactly would any individual country be able to have a better
chance of getting to the bottom of it?
Q341 Chairman:
With respect, Secretary of State, was it not the other way around?
The Panel are saying, "We have identified and named companies—for
example one UK company is Afrimex—we would hope that the
host government would investigate to determine whether or not
there was a case to answer". In this context that is what
the UN was asking the UK Government, amongst others, to do.
Hilary Benn: There is the case
both in relation to sanctions and in relation to the OECD guidelines,
and you may be asking about both. In the case of the sanctions,
in the end the FCO advised that none of the three had broken UK
law, or there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. In the case
of the companies that had been accused of being in breach of OECD
guidelines, the final Panel Report identified four unresolved
UK-based companies. The contact point has now produced a statement
in relation to the first three and there is one which remains
under investigation. I understand it is the intention of the DTI
to make a statement on the fourth once the final specific instances
have been concluded. That is the process we have undertaken to
look into those, but I come back to my point about insufficient
evidence because it is a difficult place in which to try and establish
exactly what has gone on. That is a broader contextual point,
but that is what we have done to look into them.
Q342 Chairman:
One final thing, in your own submission you said there was a cabinet
sub-committee for conflict prevention and reconstruction established,
and at the time you sent the memorandum it was expected to meet
for the first time in March. Can you give us any indication as
to whether it has met?
Hilary Benn: Yes, it has met once,
and I think it has been a sensible step forward. I believe the
establishment of the Pools has been a big step forward because,
as I think I have said to the Committee before, you bring the
three departments together to discuss what you are going to do
with the funding and that does tend to encourage a discussion
about what it is you are trying to do. On reflection, as far as
the cabinet sub-committee was concerned, we thought it made sense
to bring it together, overseeing both of the Pools, the Africa
and the Global Conflict Pool.
Q343 Chairman:
Can I perhaps repeat that if you are able to reflect on the earlier
involvement of the DTI on some of these other issues, it might
be of interest if you are able to give us a reply on that.
Hilary Benn: I intend to do that.
Q344 Richard Burden:
Just on that, and it goes back to the investigation of companies,
I certainly take the point about evidence, but I am still a little
uncertain that if there did appear to be a prima facie
case and something had gone there, what would be likely to happen
and who would take the initiative to do it?
Hilary Benn: Prima facie
evidence of what?
Richard Burden: Let us say they were
breaching OECD guidelines?
Q345 Chairman:
Would that be a DTI response?
Hilary Benn: As I understand it,
the process is that the DTI approaches the company against whom
that allegation has been made to ask them, "What have you
been up to?" and in the end what I think is called a national
Contact Point statement is produced. In the case of the four,
that has happened for three of them and one is still being investigated.
Chairman: Secretary of State, I think
what the Committee is getting at is we are a little concerned
that unless the DTI are more focused on this conflict issue they
may not quite see the relevance and the importance of the oversee
of it. Maybe involving them at an earlier stage might be a desirable
extra dimension to deal with the conflict. Thank you very much.
| 
