Examination of Witnesses (Quesitons 80-99)
RT HON
GORDON BROWN
MP
13 DECEMBER 2007
Q80 Mr Whittingdale: On that, it
has always been the case that the police were regarded as being
in a special category, not just because they have to put their
lives at risk but also because they have given up the right to
strike. You will be aware that many of them are now saying that
if they are no longer regarded as a special case by the Government,
why should they behave differently to other public sector workers;
why should they not now consider taking some forms of industrial
protest within the law?
Mr Brown: You are wrong to suggest
that everything that is happening in relation to police pay is
as it always has been except for this decision. We are moving
from a system of police pay which was related to one index to
discussions about how it can be related to a different system.
So a lot is being discussed about changes in the police pay system
and I think these discussions should go ahead and people should
draw the conclusion. I also note that there are many people in
the police who do not want to break the decision that has been
both a decision of the police and a decision of governments that
there is a no strike agreement.
Q81 Mr Whittingdale: But what is
the point of going on having discussions if you have made it absolutely
clear that you are not prepared to make any movement on the question
of pay?
Mr Brown: The discussions that
are taking place are not simply about 1 December's pay rise. They
are about the long-term system for setting police pay for the
future. Let me just repeat: I value the police. The fact that
we have more police in this country than ever before is a recognition
of the important job that they do in building community cohesion
as well as protecting law and order. I would like to pay the police
more. That is what I think the Government would wish to do under
circumstances in which we did not have to counteract what is a
major economic issue that had to be dealt with. I am sorry if
people from other parties do not recognise that it was the failure
in the past to deal with economic problems when they started to
arise that caused us to have a stop-go economy for so many years
and caused us to move from boom to bust and into recessions on
so many different occasions. I think people should bear in mind
that for the last 10 years we have had consistent, stable growth
in this economy and I am determined that that is the pattern for
the next period as well.
Chairman: We come to the final section,
foreign policy priorities and delivery.
Q82 Malcolm Bruce: Prime Minister,
this Government is active in foreign policy issues all over the
world, perhaps more active than it has been for a considerable
amount of time. Initially can I turn attention to Afghanistan?
You made a statement yesterday in the House which had a great
deal of detail and I think which was generally welcomed. Do you
accept in the context of Afghanistan that there is a real problem
with border security, both specifically from Iran and from Pakistan?
When my Committee was in Afghanistan at the end of October we
were constantly being told by the Afghan authorities that the
difficulty of dealing with the Taliban was that they retreated
across an unpoliced border into Pakistan. We then met the Pakistan
Ambassador, who said actually, terrorism in Pakistan was increasingly
being sourced by cross-border activity from Afghanistan. Can you
say what talks the Government is having about how to deal with
security in the federally administered tribal areas on that border,
which, after all, has never been internationally recognised?
Mr Brown: This is exactly the
discussions I had with President Karzai on Monday, that there
can be no long-term solution to the security of Afghanistan if
it does not involve regional co-operation. First, of course, Iran
has got to play a more positive role, and I said that in the statement
yesterday. Second, as you rightly detect, the relationship between
Pakistan and Afghanistan has to be a stronger one where they are
co-operating together to deal with the terrorist problems that
they face. There has been considerable success in Afghanistan
in dealing with the Taliban but equally, of course, there are
problems relating to Al Qaeda which have to be dealt with and
ought to be dealt with by stronger regional co-operation. What
I saw my role as on Monday was to urge President Karzai to build
stronger relationships, as he is trying to do, with President
Musharraf and others in Pakistan who also have an interest in
dealing with these problems.
Q83 Malcolm Bruce: In those areas,
that is the centre of the poppy production and the opium and heroin
trade. Again, we were told that eradication of poppy can only
come about with greater security. In reality, the UK has a responsibility
in Helmand, which has become the world's greatest centre of poppy
production. The reason for that apparently is that the opium dealers
will buy the poppy direct from the farm gate, which makes it a
much more attractive crop than any other where you have to get
it to market and with no security you cannot do it. In that context,
you said yesterday there will be no deals with the Taliban but
there is a lot of discussion about how you separate the Taliban
and actually get the tribal leaders on side across that disputed
border area. Can you tell us how you think that can happen in
ways that will actually enhance security and not actually drive
the poppy farmers more into the hands of the Taliban?
Mr Brown: This is the big issue,
as you rightly suggest. There has been some success in some provinces
which are classified as poppy-free. There has been limited success
in Helmand, which, as I understand it, has about half the world's
production and therefore is the major source of the problems that
we have to deal with for the future. I said yesterday that eradication
of course on the ground—and there has been a huge debate
about aerial spraying, and our view is that there should be eradication
on the ground—has to be matched by better judicial systems,
it has to be matched by a determination to talk to and involve
the tribal chiefs, but it has also, of course, got to be matched
by alternative sources of economic activity that can be attractive
to people who otherwise would see their only source of livelihood
in drugs. Therefore the counter-narcotics programme has to involve
all these things. It has to be a combined set of measures. To
make that work you require a stronger national government. That
is the importance that I attach to building up the capacity to
govern both nationally and, of course, locally as well.
Q84 Malcolm Bruce: Just finally on
that point, do you agree that sometimes talk about the Taliban
is not entirely clear or helpful? We were asked in Afghanistan
if we understood what the definition of "Taliban" was
and they said "unemployed young man". In other words,
the Taliban is a great catch-all for a whole variety of different
issues. Do you accept that it is really important to understand
that there is a real Taliban which clearly want to overthrow and
re-establish an Islamist society? There are many disaffected people
that need to be won back, and both our military and civil strategy
has to ensure that we separate the real Taliban from those disaffected
people.
Mr Brown: I hope I emphasised
yesterday that the Taliban leadership has to be eradicated and
that is why the Musa Qala attacks are important, because the Taliban
were routed from that area but, you are absolutely right, there
is a large number of people who can easily come under the influence
of extremist elements if there are no alternative sources of economic
activity and if there are no alternative messages, either through
the tribal chiefs or through others, that are being put to the
people. President Karzai says that over the last few months about
5,000 former fighters have come over from what would be called
the Taliban into supporting the democratic structures that have
been created in Afghanistan and, of course, where you can break
the Taliban, divide and rule, where you can defeat those people
by isolating the leadership from others who may come under their
influence, you are going to be able to make a difference for the
future, and that is part of the strategy of reconciliation that
the President is pursuing.
Chairman: Before we leave Pakistan and
Afghanistan, Mohammad Sarwar would like to ask a question.
Q85 Mr Sarwar: Prime Minister, may
we agree that the best way to defeat terrorism and extremism is
to promote democratic governments in the world, particularly in
the Islamic countries? As you know, there are going to be elections
in Pakistan on eight January. I think it is encouraging that President
Musharraf has taken off his uniform and he has set the political
prisoners free, but still there is a state of emergency, the constitution
is suspended, one of the most popular TV channels, Geo,
is still off the air. Would you encourage or use your Government's
influence on President Musharraf to say that the emergency must
be lifted, the constitution must be restored and the media must
be free to ensure free and fair elections in Pakistan?
Mr Brown: I think it is important
for Pakistan and for people who are elected in these important
elections that these elections are seen to be fair, and therefore
it is important that they happen with a free media, and it is
important that they happen without a state of emergency. To President
Musharraf's credit, he has kept his word that he will remove the
uniform, he has released large numbers of political prisoners,
and he says that he wishes to end the state of emergency as soon
as possible but you are absolutely right: if the elections are
to be seen to be fair and can bind the country together in a serious
way, then other steps will have to be taken before these elections
actually happen.
Malcolm Bruce: I am going to ask James
Arbuthnot to talk about the relationship between the Government
and our Armed Forces.
Q86 Mr Arbuthnot: Prime Minister,
your visit to the troops in Afghanistan was, I think, much appreciated
and welcomed, as was your recent visit to Iraq, but I do not think
you visited the troops deployed abroad when you were Chancellor
of the Exchequer very frequently. I wonder whether you think there
would be any merit in having a regular programme of visits by
Treasury ministers to see the troops deployed abroad?
Mr Brown: I think you are being
very unfair. I did visit the troops when I was Chancellor and,
of course, I have had a long-term interest in defence issues because
my own constituency was included, and that is next-door to the
naval base in Rosyth Dockyard, and I have a tremendous affection
for what the Armed Forces do and continue to do and wish to give
them all the support possible; so I think the assumption of your
question is wrong. Of course, every senior minister will wish
to give what support he or she can to the Armed Forces.
Q87 Mr Arbuthnot: How about a regular
programme of visits?
Mr Brown: Are you talking about
the Treasury or are you talking about myself?
Q88 Mr Arbuthnot: The Treasury Minister.
I think the Defence Minister visits troops very regularly.
Mr Brown: Of course we want to
see that happen, but I do not think you should assume that there
has not been contact in the past in a way that has been beneficial
to both the Treasury and to the Armed Forces.
Q89 Mr Arbuthnot: Once again, something
else that has been welcomed is the fact that the pay for the Armed
Forces went up by 3%, and for some of the junior ranks it went
up by 9%, but it was not funded. Given that the Ministry of Defence's
budget went up by, I think, 1.5%, do you accept that that leaves
the Ministry of Defence with some really difficult decisions to
grapple with?
Mr Brown: I do not accept the
presumption of your question either. I think you are basing this
on misleading information. The Ministry of Defence has had a budget
that has risen every year. The recommendation to accept the pay
review body award in full was theirs. The money that was provided
to the Ministry of Defence also has an addition for every operation
that the Ministry of Defence and our Armed Forces are involved
in, so over these last few years, in addition to the 30, 31 billion
or so budget of the Ministry of Defence, six billion has gone
in monies that have been paid by the Treasury for operations that
they are conducting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What has actually
happened over these last few years is that urgent operational
requirements have been met from the reserve, additional money
has been paid for the work that has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan
and that is on top of a rising budget for the Ministry of Defence
that now makes our defence budget the second biggest in the world.
Where 10 years ago it was only the fifth biggest in the world
after France, after Russia and after China, it is now second only
to America. Of course, that is right because of the work that
we have to do, but I do not think the assumption of your question
is right at all.
Q90 Mr Arbuthnot: I am just telling
you what the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence told
us last week, that the pay rise was not funded. He may have been
wrong.
Mr Brown: I have to say to you
that that is based on a misconception about how pay deals are
done. If there is a public sector pay award and the department
wishes to propose that it pays it in full, then that will come
from its own resources, for which allocation has been made in
the three-year settlements. It is not usual for any public sector
pay award to come from the reserve—that has not been the
practice, and that would, of course, be a very inflationary way
of doing things.
Q91 Mr Arbuthnot: My final question
is about the Defence Export Services Organisation. Did you discuss
the change in the status of the Defence Export Services Organisation
with Lord Drayson before you did it, and do you accept that the
general view of the defence industry is that the change was a
quite serious mistake?
Mr Brown: I think you will find
that the change now announced in detail by John Hutton only two
days ago is something that the defence industry and the defence
establishment can be happy with, because the defence security
organisation that has been built within the UKTI[4]
will draw on the expertise of the Ministry of Defence but have
all the advantages that the UK TI has in resources that allows
it to work in 100 countries in the world. I think you can see
from the statement that was made by Mike Turner, the Chief Executive
of BAE, that some of the things that people were concerned about
have actually been dealt with in the detailed work that has gone
into building the new organisation, but the argument for doing
this is very clear, that those people who award the licenses should
be separated from those people who promote the exports, otherwise
there is a potential conflict of interest, and that is what has
underlain the change that has been brought about. I repeat that
the Cabinet ministers who were involved in this were consulted.
Malcolm Bruce: Thank you. Prime Minister,
on foreign affairs issues Iran is virtually in the headlines every
day. I am going to ask Mike Gapes to address some questions on
that.
Q92 Mike Gapes: Prime Minister, last
month the United States National Intelligence Council estimates
judged with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons
programme from the end of 2003 until mid 2007 and with moderate
to high confidence that it is at the minimum keeping open the
option to develop nuclear weapons. Do we agree with that assessment?
Mr Brown: I think the issue that
we are most concerned about in relation to what you say is the
enrichment of uranium. If Iran is enriching uranium or seeking
to do so in a context where it has no real programme for civil
nuclear power, then there is a question mark over their motive,
and over hiding the information from the international community
for years, and over the purpose of what the enrichment of uranium
could in a very short period of time lead to; so the United Nations
Security Council motions are related to the enrichment of uranium
and the threat that that potentially poses, because you can move
from enriching uranium quickly to the production of nuclear weapons.
Q93 Mike Gapes: You have referred
to the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Those two
existing sanctions, resolutions 1737 and 1747, have led to an
Iranian reaction whereby they have accelerated the production
of enriched uranium, and the IAEA[5]
Board's report from Mr El Baradei three weeks ago says they now
have up to 3,000 centrifuges operating and it also says that they
are being less co-operative with the inspections of the IAEA.
How do you interpret that?
Mr Brown: I interpret them in
breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, therefore,
that the world is right to insist, by sanctions, that Iran comes
back into line. There are a number of offers on the table to Iran,
important offers. One is that uranium enrichment could take place
and be on offer for people wanting to develop civil nuclear power,
there is a proposal for a uranium bank and there is a proposal
that uranium enrichment takes place in another country but is
made available to Iran and other countries in the region. There
are many proposals on the table that would allow Iran to meet
any ambition it has for civil nuclear power while at the same
time joining the international community, and really the offer
to Iran is: "Abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
and we will offer you cultural, economic and political co-operation
for the future, but break the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
and we have no alternative but to pursue sanctions."
Q94 Mike Gapes: But the sanctions
that already exist—and our Foreign Affairs Committee were
in Iran a few weeks ago—are very limited. They are clearly
and visibly not having any major impact on the Iranian economy
in society and there has been opposition within the Security Council
for strengthening sanctions; so is there any real prospect that
there will be a change of regime behaviour by the Iranian Government
even if there is a stronger sanctions regime?
Mr Brown: I appreciate that you
have been in the region very recently, but the evidence that we
have is that sanctions are having an effect. We are prepared to
intensify sanctions, including in the oil and gas industry, and
intensifying the financial sanctions in relation to Iran. I think
there is wider support in the international community for doing
so than you are suggesting by the statement you made at the end
of the words that you uttered a few seconds ago, and I think we
can persuade other countries to join us to intensify the sanctions.
Remember, the issue is if the world has a Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty and if by agreement people stand by that treaty, then for
countries that break that treaty and fail to disclose that they
are breaking that treaty, we have a right to take the action that
is necessary to try to bring them back into line, and sanctions
have been the chosen course.
Q95 Mike Gapes: I understand that,
but is it not true that the big problem with Iran is actually
that this is a revolutionary regime that yearns for international
legitimacy, and the big thing they want is for the United States
to accept their existence and because the US and Iran have not
had diplomatic relations since 1979 and because Iran is seeking
to feel that somehow it is existing and accepted in the world,
that there is an alternative approach which might have more effect
to strengthen the more moderate and pragmatic voices in the society,
which is a very dynamic, young, pluralistic society with a theocratic
cap on the top and that somehow, by the rhetoric and by the sanctions,
we may only be strengthening Mr Ahmadinejad and the hardliners
and those who take the more conservative approach rather than
the prospect of engagement, as the EU did, which coincided with
the period of the halt to the programme?
Mr Brown: I think you make a powerful
case that there are divisions within Iran and that there will
be people who are not happy about the position that Iran has been
taking in secretly developing a uranium enrichment programme.
I think that sanctions will bring to the surface some of these
divisions that are actually there already within the Iranian regime,
but I do also say to you, if you want to rejoin the international
community and to have the status that a country that has the traditions
and history of Iran should have, then the best way of going about
it is not to break the international community's Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty and to do so in a secret way over many years, and the best
way for Iran to come back to the international community in the
way you suggest and to build up support round the world and to
have the cultural, economic and political context that I want
to see is for Iran to come into line with the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty and suspend the original programme or find a way by which
uranium enrichment can take place to promote a civil nuclear programme
but perhaps enrichment taking place outside the country rather
than inside it.
Q96 Mike Gapes: Prime Minister, would
it not be helpful if the US was to intensify its dialogue with
Iran with a view to developing diplomatic relations at some point,
because at the moment there is almost no contact between the United
States and Iran?
Mr Brown: I think the world community
wishes to see Iran brought back, as you rightly say, into the
international community in a way where there is cultural, political
and economic contact that is to the benefit of the world and to
the people of Iran, but I think you have got to start by dealing
with the problem that we have, and the problem that we have is,
in breach of all its international obligations, Iran has been
developing a uranium enrichment programme which is not, it seems,
for the purposes of civil nuclear power, and until we can get
a solution to that particular problem, then it is likely that
the rest of the world community will want to impose sanctions.
Q97 Malcolm Bruce: Just on that,
Prime Minister, the main democratic opposition to the Iranian
regime is the People's Mujahideen organisation of Iran, which
has been proscribed in this country. The proscribed organisation's
appeals committee have said that they are not involved in terrorism
and that the refusal of the Home Secretary to de-proscribe them
was flawed, perverse and must be set aside. Why does the Government
not accept that?
Mr Brown: I have looked at that
issue that you raise. It is certainly, however, the case that
the organisation that you describe has been, in the past, involved
in terrorist activity, and I do not think there is any doubt about
the evidence that that has been the case. Therefore, to proscribe
an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems
the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government to be
consistent with other decisions that we make.
Q98 Malcolm Bruce: We have accepted
sometimes that terrorist organisations can change their ways?
Mr Brown: But I do not think we
have that evidence.
Malcolm Bruce: Another item that is very
much in the news at the moment and is likely to be watched closely
over Christmas is developments in Kosovo. Can I ask Mike Gapes
to deal with that?
Q99 Mike Gapes: Prime Minister, you
are going to Lisbon, where there will no doubt be a discussion
with other EU leaders about how to deal with the fact that the
UN deadline of December 10 expired, that there was no agreement
between the troika, that the incoming Prime Minister of Kosovo,
Mr Tachi, intends to have a unilateral declaration of independence.
There are divisions in the European Union. Are you expecting a
united statement out of Lisbon?
Mr Brown: Yes, and I think we
have already seen that the foreign ministers have made advances
in that area. I think the way forward is supervised independence.
I do think that the Kosovans are to be applauded for not reacting
in a way that would make it impossible or difficult for us to
get the agreements for the future, and I hope that Serbia will
come to an understanding that its wish to be part of the European
community of nations means that it should accommodate what is
the legitimate desire of the Kosovan people; so a supervised form
of independence is how we see the next stage.
4 UK Trade and Investment Back
5
International Atomic Energy Agency Back
| 
