Examination of Witnesses (Questions 77-79)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
KENNY DICK
AND MS
KATE JOSEPH
1 MARCH 2007
Q77 Chairman: Minister, welcome. I think
this is the first time DFID has given evidence to the Quadripartite
Committee. We are very grateful. Thank you for the written answers
to various questions we posed before this meeting and I think
you may have another answer coming up in a moment. Perhaps for
the record, I could ask you to introduce you and your colleagues.
Mr Thomas: Thank you for the words
of welcome. Perhaps I could introduce Kenny Dick and Kate Joseph
from our Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department. I would
like to take this opportunity, also, to confirm that I can release
to the Committee now, in confidence, the methodology that we use
for applying Criterion 8 of the guidance.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I am sure
we will have questions on the application of Criterion 8 this
afternoon, but thank you for the document. We will go away and
think about it and I am sure we will have questions that we will
want to raise at some stage. We are very grateful to you for the
opportunity of seeing the methodology. I know there are some Members
of Parliament from Ukraine here this afternoon. You are very welcome.
We hope you find our proceedings interesting. On that note, the
first question from Sir John Stanley.
Q78 Sir John Stanley: Minister, following
the substantial policy change by the British government in the
Oslo declaration last weekend on cluster bomb policy, could you
clarify for us whether the British Government's position is that
there should be a treaty ban on cluster bombs and whether the
British Government's position is that that ban should be unqualified
or qualified?
Mr Thomas: I do not think there
was a substantial change in policy of the British Government last
week. We have always made clear that we want progress on the elimination
of particularly the so-called "dumb" cluster munitions.
We see the convention on certain conventional weapons as the ideal
process to make progress but we recognise that the Oslo process
offers a way of injecting momentum into that process. That is
why we went to Oslo, that is why we engaged in the way that we
did and it is why we were happy to sign the declaration. There
will be a process of detailed negotiations now to try to reach
more detailed agreement. One of the first issues will be to try
to agree definitions, which has obviously, as you will be aware,
been a significant problem for some time in the events around
cluster munitions. But we welcome the Oslo process. We see it
as being complementary to the CCW[1]
process and we are going to work through both processes to try
to move forward.
Q79 Sir John Stanley: That does not answer
my question, Minister. Is the British Government's policy objective
a total ban on cluster bombs of all types or just a ban on "dumb"
cluster bombs?
Mr Thomas: I cannot answer the
question you have asked me in the specific way that I suspect
you would like because one of the things we have to agree first,
in order to arrive, if you like, at an answer to that question,
is the definition as to what constitutes a cluster munition. We
are clear that the cluster munitions we want to see eliminated
within the next decade are so-called "dumb" cluster
munitions but even using that phrase we still have to reach a
more detailed definition with allies in the Oslo process. Yes,
ultimately we would want to sign that treaty, but in order to
sign a treaty we have to arrive at agreed definitions with the
other potential signatories of such a treaty.
1 UN Convention on Conventional Weapons Back
| 
