Examination of Witness (Question 200-210)
BILL RAMMELL
MP, MS JO
ADAMSON AND
MR ANDREW
MASSEY
22 APRIL 2009
Q200 Mr Jenkin: Which are the countries
not in the consensus?
Mr Massey: I have not got a list,
but we can get one. 6[6]
Q201 Mr Jenkin: Does it include other
EU countries?
Mr Massey: Yes.
Q202 Mr Jenkin: So other EU countries
are actively selling anti-vehicle land mines.
Bill Rammell: We achieved internationally
the consensus on anti-personnel land mines, and because it is
similar technology and there are similar concerns, in principle
we would like to stop the sale of anti-vehicle land mines. We
are not in a position to be able to do that at the moment, but
I will clarify to you which countries are within the group and
which are not.
Q203 Chairman: Why can they not go
in category A?
Mr Massey: We have got exactly
the same problem as category B; we still do not have an internationally
agreed definition of what we think they are.
Q204 Chairman: --- where they are,
then.
Mr Massey: Yes, we have a declaration.
Q205 Chairman: We are talking about
our export controls, are we not? What is there to stop us putting
anti-vehicle land mines in either A or B?
Bill Rammell: Look, you could,
but I said previously we try, because we are dealing with competitiveness
and industrial concerns, not to create an un-level playing-field,
and that is why we have gone down the route we have. We have made
a number of specific commitments that I think clean up and police
the export of anti-vehicle land mines. However, I do not rule
out for ever and a day that we might move to category B listing,
but that would have to involve some agreement and consensus with
international partners, which is not there at the moment.
Q206 Chairman: We very much welcome
the moves the Government has made in relation to extraterritorial
controls, as you know, Minister, and there are some areas where
we still think more could be done—and this is one of them.
In a sense it seems a little odd to say, "The UK cannot do
this because of international negotiations." We could further
apply extraterritorial controls and could apply it to anti-vehicle
land mines if we wanted to, as you rightly say. Which category
they would be put in is a little arbitrary, is it not?
Bill Rammell: Except that if you
look in practice at the commitments we have made with 19 other
nations, that achieves what people want us to achieve. We are
moving forward on that and trying to deliver. I am not sure at
the moment that category B listing would provide anything additional
to that.
Q207 Mr Jenkin: Why not put it in
category B?
Bill Rammell: Because if you undermine
the principle that you list category B or category A on the basis
of international consensus and heightened concern, if you breach
that principle I think you lead to a number of unintended consequences.
Q208 Mr Jenkin: So it is not that
we are now issuing licences for the export of anti-vehicle land
mines, but we would not be issuing if it were under category B?
It makes no material difference.
Bill Rammell: That is my understanding.
Mr Massey: When we talk about
licensing of anti-vehicle land mines, we are only aware of one
licence since November 2006, which was an export to Sweden where
the AVMs were actually going to be disposed of. I do not think
we are talking about a major problem in terms of export control
from the UK.
Q209 Chairman: I am sure the Committee
will give that further consideration. Minister, can I ask a final
question about restricted material that the Committee receives,
for example following your colleague Ian Pearson's evidence earlier
in the year, one of the follow-up letters had a restricted section
concerning head-up display units and F16 fighter jets. At the
time many of us could not understand why the information was restricted.
Our clerk then had negotiations with BERR and it was partly derestricted.
There have been one or two examples like this. My personal view
is that the Government is very open about these things, and you
have been very open and frank with us today; but even my charity
gets tested when I look at these documents, and for the life of
me I cannot understand why certain things are restricted in the
first place, then we have a quiet moan about it, and hey-ho bits
are quickly derestricted. This is not the best way to proceed,
is it, Minister?
Bill Rammell: No. I take that
on the chin. In preparing for this evidence session I discussed
it with officials, and it is in nobody's interests for items to
end up on a restricted basis where, frankly, with some minor amendments
they could end up on a non-restricted basis. I have instructed
officials to view communications with your Committee on that basis
for the future. Does that mean I can guarantee in all circumstances
that something will not be restricted? No, it does not, but the
bias of justification or the threshold for justification within
the department will be set much higher to communicate with you
in restricted terms.
Q210 Chairman: We obviously appreciate
the need for restricted information and we deal with restricted
information that is made available to the Committee. At no time
has that restriction over years and years and years ever been
abused. We respect that restriction. I do not think I need to
press the point that our view is that, in the past, departments
have been a little over-cautious.
Bill Rammell: I think you are
making a very fair point, and I would hope that in the future
you will see a change in practice.
Chairman: Minister, unless any colleagues
have a final question—there are other interesting things
happening today as well as this meeting—can I thank you
and your colleagues very much indeed. We are very grateful and
look forward to the written responses to one or two questions,
which you kindly promised. We know they will be in a derestricted
form, so thank you very much indeed.
6 6 Ev 109 Back
| 
