Obtain an explosives permit. In 91 of the cases this is not me, this is the gao, 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists were suszful in pass passing a background check. What can be done about this . Well, senator, we do now is if someone on the watch list purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm, an immediate alert is sent to the agents who are the source of the suspicious about that individual, so they can incorporate that information into the investigation. Its a little bit challenge for us because noknown or summited means it hasnt been adjudicated. Its somebody were investigating, so we dont want to lower our investigation. Let me say this. In 2007, the braigss Justice Department drafted legislation to close what is a gap and prevent a known or suspected terrorist from buying a gun or explosive in this countyry. In 2009, attorney general holder expressed the obama administrations support for the legislation. And i introduced similar legislation in the senate last year. The question comes for the Law Enforcement element of the administration. F to really come forward and be supportive of this. Because the National Rifle Association Even opposes this. Now, this is terrorists, you know we get people come into this country meaning to do us harm and they can go in and buy a weapon. To carry it out. That simply is unacceptable. So, i want to bring it to your attention, you know we have to come together and prevent this from happening. Your biggest concern is the lone wolf. The lone wolf can come in unarmed. Buy the explosives, the gun. This must be stopped. I dont know where the legislature is on the administration. I am focused on the operational piece of it to make sure we are alerted. Ill have to fipd out where the Administration Stands on the legislation. If you will and id like to know where you stand. Im the fbi. You dont stand . I dont stand. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you all for being here. Appreciate all that you represent. First of all id like for you to send our condolences to special agent williams wife and two young children. I understand hes lost a bout with cancer and we certainly are thinking of him and director hilton we want also to express our condolences to josie wells, killed in the line of duty on march the 10th, family and friends, i think this again, these things illustrate whats yall are about and we really do appreciate you. In regard to really want to follow up on what senator was talking about. In a different way and just the tools that weve got out there to try and fight the drug epidemic and fighting that director jones, as a response to crime in arkansas, i understand that both are potentially candidates to be made a Violence Reduction network. Can you talk about that and that initiative and how thats helpful . Thank you. The reduction in the work is an initiative that the old becomes new and it really is a collaborative effort. With not only federal Law Enforcement across the board, but with state and locals to address Violent Crime at a multitude of levels and make it sustainable. I know that little rock in particular has been discussed not only as a vrn potential site, but also is a site that weve done some work for. To try and address the un unacceptable levels and kind of Violent Crime, but the vrn is really there are ten cities now, there has been a conference here, we brought all the stakeholders, das, u. S. Attorneys, state and local Police Departments, all those federal agencies represented here to discuss in a very focused way, the nature of the Violent Crime problem, the perpetrators of the violence in those communities and Sustainable Strategies to lower it eradicate it. Very good. And related, can you talk about that and how that fits in . Sure. All of the agencies at the table tell senator those initials stand for. High intensity. Not that he doesnt know. We get lost in initials. That you know every day. Youre exactly right. Alphabet soup to us or a scrabble game. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program run by omdcp and it really allows us numerous heights. Theyre big task forces with different initiatives that bring state, local, federal together. And in the task forces we are able to concentrate on kind of a regional concept. The threats, both Violent Crime that are reeking havoc on those communities. So, is there, i guess my question, is there a way to and weve got, we could go down to line. Weve got all of these programs going on is there a way to integrate the program so when youre doing your thing director jones and miss leonard, director hilton, fbi, do we integrate those things where we go into a community . Absolutely. The beauty of say a task force is that some of the groups are run by the fbi, concentrating on the violent gangs that the fbi brings expertise to the table on. Others are fugitive related and run by the Marshall Service to make sure we are going after the most significant, wanted violators in the area. And then once theyre concentrating on firearms are often run by the atf. They are integrated and all the different initiatives and task forces compliment each other and that is why our departments and state and local partners can almost seemlessly work between these task forces to go after the threat. Thank you. Very quickly because im out of time, as the, if we do assess that we reduce the federal prison population, how is that going to afblgt you guys . I think theres always criminals ready to come system, so as the prison population decreases, our as all of us fight for gangs and drugs to be reduced, i see that population continuing to come into detention as we address those issues that congress has explained, so i think well still see them incoming. Youll see it go down in prisons, but come back up. Thank you all for being here. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on some of the early questions regard inging the work that atf is doing surrounding following on the Law Enforcement officers protection act. This was just for the committees recollection, a piece of legislation that was passed in 1986 by 40021 margin in house of representatives, passed by unanimous consent in the United States senate and president reagan said upon signing it that put certain forms of ammunition that have no selfdefense use and should be prohibit prohibited. Its always been tricky work to try to stay true to the acts and intention of stopping criminals from killing Law Enforcement officers. Ta dangerous weapons while observing the right of hunters to enjoy their past time. I just want to first thank the atf. You mentioned in your testimony for the amazing work they did in and around the sandy hook shooting, but also just relay a story. I was in that fire house mere hours after the shooting took place and i had a Law Enforcement officer standing next to me remark that in a way, he was glad that he took his own life because he feared for life and safety of his officers should a shoot swrout have occurred giveren that ammunition, the power of the weapons found on mr. Lanzas possession. I wanted to just maybe ask to follow question as to why we were considering this particular type of ammunition in the first place. My understanding that what has happened here over time when we talk about these green tips is that they were initially excemented in part because they were only used in rifles, but now, they are able to be used in handguns. We look at handguns in a different way, giffin that they are much more likely to be used in an assault on an officer. In fact, the underlying legislation specifically references handguns as something the atf should be looking at. I think it would be helpful for us to understand why you got to the point of proposing that we take a new look at a time of ammunition that would been exempted for a period of time. Its used in a different way today. Thats the reason for the relook, correct . Senator, i think its important to remember that this 30day period for Public Comment on a framework involves additional exemss. The classification for that round, which is military surplus, 5. 56, 62 grain steel following into the parameters of the armor piercing was given and its had an exception for 30 years. Its been on the market for that long. Its been available to folks for 30 years or more. I think the challenge for us separate and apart from Going Forward is not going to happen anytime soon is the evolution of Firearms Technology and some of the platforms, Assault Rifle based platforms that have evolved over those 30 years and the capabilities of those and conceal bty of those and in fact, some that would qualify as pistol platforms create some challenges for us. Now, i do believe this is going to take work across the board, but this is not going to be something that atf alone is going to do through a regulatory process. I think everybody if you paid attention to some of the challenges there, the handgun phenomena, the crime gun phenomena, primarily pistol, but as we see more and more of the firearmed that could be classified as pistols being able to use not just this mm 85 round, but any round. Its a challenge for officer safety, public safety. Bottom line, you know, you all have have an opportunity to maybe have a discussion that we would gladly help you with on leopa because it was passed in 86 and a lot has happened. My time has expired. I appreciate the answer to the question. I point out the law to remind folks that this was bipartisan at the outset and as we per perfected and as you mentioned, this rule contemplates excemented more ammunition. It involves prohibiting. We should remember the bipartisan spirit in which we began this effort and hopefully we can regain that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I think theres a real bipartisan interest in this Community Around this issue. Doj is supposed to give me, not me that was the old days, the committee a report because we asked for a task force. When we get that well have a staff briefing so we can be up to date and really have a concerted effort. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses. I apologize for missing the testimony. I was chairing my own subcommittee. We are extremely proud of the work being done by the criminal Justice Information systems at the facility in clarks burg. Over the years, biometrics has been exceedly useful to partner partners. To confirm that you are who you say you are. But more importantly, to figure out who someone is by a fingerprint left on a murder weapon or a bomb for example. The fbi sees this Division Since the 90s, the fbi has been saving the american taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by deferring the cost of modernizing its known as but the budget seems to jeopardize those efforts. It includes 120 million. Can you tell me the committee what the impact would be and how this production could affect the fbi ess ability to invest in the latest technology, including facial recognition, scans and dna just to name a few . Thank you, senator. During my opening statement, i was bragging a little bit about my folks because they are a hidden gem in the fbi and i believe they are the frame. Information we share, identities we share. The dna, all of it goes through that great facility there and im very excited were going to open shortly a biometrics facility thats going to make this country even safer. I told them when i visited them, people dont know how cool you are here in west virginia. Thats part of the quality of your work. You do it so well, that everybody takes it for granted so very excited about it. Know how much i love and admire their work. The answer is i dont think they will have an the reason in the budget, that is about moneys that sit in additional moneys in the account that came from fee for service. The statute restricts my use of that funds in certain ways. I am looking for ways in which to use it consistent with the law, but my understanding is that 125 million the loss of that will not affect next generation identification, the dna database, any of the great work were doing out there. Its simply extra that came in over time from fees being paid that we can use to invest in Additional Information systems. But even if were not able to, its not going to affect the rest of the work. Well, thats good because i think the modernization is something that is ongoing changing and were extremely pleased to have the folks and fbi in clarksburg. Its been a wonderful addition to our community and we know how great it is out there, too. So i appreciate that. Id like to ask director jones a question. Because you also have a facility in west virginia. Wonderful. Yes. And theres an aspect of the budget of which im pleased about and would like to ask you regarding the investment of a proposed tracing facility in martinsburg. I think this will be with whats existing there, but youre requesting an increase for Equipment Software upgrades. Can you discuss the work thats been done at the tracing center there and why this would be i love our facility because it does such critical work to what we do. We have a grant that processes the ever increasing request for nfa licenses. Thats been driven by silencers. Weve got almost a quarter of a million requests last year and so, that will allow us to add ten more examiners that are crucial to processing and were making progress while cutting down the time. And it will give us money for contractors because about half of our workforce in martinsburg is contractors that not only do nfa licensing, they also do our crime tracing and we have a Violent Crime Analysis Branch and its out there, so thats kind of the heart of our gun work. At atf is out there in that Martins Martinsburg facility. Thats good news. I certainly would be supportive of that. If i could make a quick comment because i missed the decision on heroin and the Ranking Member mentioned that and im assuming thats in reflection of the rise in heroin, the rise in heroin overdoses, younger people being affected by this. Even a state like, a small state like west virginia, this is having devastating effects. And i certainly would love to be a part of of some preventive measures, either supply or demand side, to try to stop what we see happening and destroying lives all across the country. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and thank you all very much for your service and for being here this morning. I guess i want to start with the administrator. I want to follow up on senator capitos comments, so many of the other comments weve heard about heroin epidemic around this country. Were seeing it in New Hampshire and Northern New England and New Hampshire in the last ten years, weve seen people admitted to state treatment programs increase 90 for heroin use and so, it is truly an epidemic, one police chief described it to me this way. He said when we have someone shooting up at 2 00 in the afternoon and the parking lot of target in bedford, which is a very upscale community, we know weve got a problem, so we have a problem and what im interested in is not which lanes people are if, im interested in what coordination is going on. Between the agencies and specifically, one of the things ive done a series of round tables meeting with Law Enforcement, treatment officials and the medical community in New Hampshire because one of the things that we have heard there is that the heroin abuse is the result of Prescription Drug abuse. And that one place where there is a breakdown in how we address this issue has to do with prescribing and the medical Community Needs to be very involved in this discussion and as far as i can tell at the national level, were not doing as much as we should be doing. Can i ask you or anyone on the panel, but what are you doing to coordinate the efforts your agency is engaging in and how are you getting out information about those activities to local communities . The availability grant moneys that resources are available in local communities. Ill start with that. Yes, the northeast especially. With the exploding Prescription Drug problem comes what follows is a heroin problem. So what weve done and have done very well with our state and local partners in the northeast is form, weve got tactical diversions diversion investigators, dea agents, state and local officers and they become the teams that are responsible for not only the Prescription Drug problem, but also that heroin abuse in those communities and excuse me for interrupt interrupting, but are you working with the medical community and some of the medical colleges around the whole prescribing challenges . Doctors are really not given a lot of guidance on how to prescribe because its a variable issue depending on the disease on the individual. Thats correct. Its one dreg drug problem that isnt just about Law Enforcement. So, there are a number of efforts. We have been at the table with medical professionals, we have gone out we have had seminars weve worked with our u. S. Attorneys to bring the medical community, the Law Enforcement community, treatment prevention people together. A number of those have occurred in the northeast. But overprescribing is one of the major problems in our working with our hhs, you know, there are the lane for doctor, education falls with them. However, we have all partnered together and have put on, weve offered training and weve gone out to schools. So how is that reflected in your budget as you look at where your priorities are for addressing this issue . How would you rate the enforcement side versus the prevention and the outreach efforts that youre doing . Thank you senator for, for bringing that up because there is a piece of our budget that this subcommittee could be very helpful with and thats our dcfa part of the budget that handles diversion control. With that budget, it will allow us to continue to do outreach, part of that outreach is working with the medical associations, getting the word out. We put a number of things on our website. We give them training manuals, a number of things. The budget for 2016 if we are to get that money, that will a i low us to keep as well as bring 50 additional diversion vest investigators and bring 50 Additional Special agents into the program. We enforcement is just one piece. We feel that the Public Outreach is very important and with our 66 diversion squads around the country, allowing them Additional Resources to be able to go out and reach the medical community is one of our priorities. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member and our panel for your service and commitment of the men and women you lead. I want to follow in on this line of questioning. Reports indicate that the dea is investigating Drug Diversion from a Veterans Affairs medical facility in wisconsin. Which is also the facility is also the subject of a broader va investigation into opiod practices at the facility. Of course, the va is itself a federal agency. The possibility that illicit drug use and sale fueled in part by the federal government is just extremely troubleing. I look forward to discussing your investigation into the facility during the closed session, but i have two related questions for this session. Has the dea identified va medical facilities as a potential source of e drug distribution. I am not in this setting, going to be able to talk specifically about toma, but i will say in general, were concern concerned with any medical facility that is contributing to the diversion and contributing to Prescription Drug abuse. We have the authorities, we have regulatory authorities and administrative authorities that we have used and we will use whether its the da facility or not. So, we share your concerns especially when this is regarding our treatment firm. You know notenoetded in your testimony that Prescription Drug abuse and particularly, prescription of opiods has become a national crisis. The cdcs reported that more than 16,000 people died using prescriptions. Thats about 37 of all Drug Overdose deaths in the United States during the calendar year, 2013. Experts see a direct connection between this and the increase in heroin use and overdose deaths. Weve heard some of my colleagues site local numbers and tragedies in this regard and wisconsin and Milwaukee County alone, we saw 73 increase in heroin related deaths from 2013 to 2014. So i know youve been asked this in many different ways, but what is your overall strategy overarching strategy that we need to know about cracking down on Prescription Drug diversion and heroin abuse and does your budget request include sufficient funding to meaningfully reduce Drug Diversion and heroin abuse. Thank you, senator. Yes, if you support the budget request, it will allow us to continue at the dea, to prioritize heroin and Prescription Drug abuse. We cant separate the two. Youre correct. The Prescription Drug use has led to a heroin epidemic. The funds that were asking for in 2016 budget allows to do a number of things. One is continue expansion of our tactical diversion squads. Those are the squads that are going to be able to go into the communities sh not just our big cities, but weve started to move these out into smaller cities in pockets that have had severe Prescription Drug problem. Were working those problems and were also able to both on our diversion side and our enforcement side work on those organizations that are moving taking advantage of the addiction in these areas. And are moving drugs into those communities and working with our state and local partners, our federal partners, take off those distribution organizations. At the same time, with our diversion control personnel, were using them to use every tool weve got in the tool box. Regulatory Authority Administrative authority. We have pumped up the regulatory side to make sure they are offering cyclical investigations and we are focusing on the entire stream. So, from the manufacturers to the distributors, pharmacies, doctors, you name it. Piece of that that we are also concentrating on is educating the public. There are certain schools that doctors should be using. Pharmacists, its important for them to pdmps, we now have 49 states that have passed laws for pdmps or have them in use and we understand missouri, the last state, has just passed or theres a bill being looked at. Using every tool to include disposal getting the drugs out of the medicine cabinet has been very important in this fight. So, its not just enforcement, its not just the outreach, its hitting at each and every level to be able to take care of the Prescription Drug problem and weve seen over the last year, year and a half, it levelled off, but that heroin problem continues to rise. And then our International Folks play a huge role here, because the majority of the heroin hitting your streets is coming from mexico. And is being trafficked by those same organizations that are bringing coke, meth, marijuana, you name it, to communities. These are the same organizations, but weve partnered with our partners in mexico who have done over the last year, have really taken a look at the heroin problem. L they see the role they play and weve done some very good work with them to focus on the problem. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i just like to follow on some of the questions that youve been fielding administrators, how grateful i am for your focus. Highly potent, inexpensive, widely available heroin is now killing many people in my hometown of wilmington, delaware and across my state. We have 15 deaths per month from overdoses and it is touching all backgrounds. All income levels. All communities. And we are eager to work in partnership with you and all of federal Law Enforcement in finding more effective models for diversion of treatment addiction and prosecution of the related crimes. It is something that is a significant challenge for our community. As it is from baltimore to miami to wisconsin and all over our country. We are really seeing a significant shift from the Prescription Drug epidemic into heroin. Let me turn from a program the Violence Reduction network the five cities that were participate ng the first round are oakland, chicago, detroit camden and wilmington delaware and im grateful for the opportunity to talk with yo u about it. The office of National Drug control policy, the Financial Services subcommittee and their program is also newly engaged in the work in delaware. Despite the small size wilmington has one of the highest rates of Violent Crime and murder in the last two years and a newly energized and engaged mayor and police chief and statewide elected official ts and Community Leaders are tackling this challenge effective ly effectively, but id love to hear from you and id invite you to start. What youre hearing about progress in wilmington . What you think are the resource challenges that might remain and youve got any input for me on whats going to be critical for turning the corner. The reports im hearing so far about the federal role is very positive. So my simple input is to say thank you for the resources being delivered. The advice, mentorship and guidance to my hometown. But if there are other things that i need to hear or things we can do to strengthen this network, id appreciate hearing them. One of the exciting things about the vrn is it will give us an opportunity to enhance the collaborative effort and i think in wilmington delaware and i have been up there ive met with our resident agent we are having some enhancements in terms of permanent personnel, which is a big part of our request in this budget. Is to get us healthy in terms of our special agent cod ray. And were starting to see the results when we have groups like in wilmington that have been working for a long time in Single Digits and enhanced with Task Force Officers and barely holding it together to actually get new atf agents up there. Our focus in wilmington is really twofold. One is partnering with the Police Department to make sure that when there are shooting incidents, that we are on them very fast and following leads to identify the trigger pullers. The other aspect of when weve had success is the traffickers. And the iron pipeline up i95 where there are guns that are available in some quote unquote Source States that travel up and wilmingtons along the pipeline to do what we can to disrupt the firearms Trafficking Networks and weve had some success recently in wilmington with people who are essentially unlicensed dealers for lack of a better term. And so that effort focusing on crime done draining the crime gun pool helping the local Police Department identify trigger pullers through leverage leveraging technology and training folks so its sustainable, really is a short time focus of our effort. Thank you. Use of gun staff, better use of Data Analysis regional partnerships, ive heard all of those have made a difference and im grateful. I have little time left if any of the three of you would like to contribute, id appreciate it. Senators, i hope you know in our wilmington office, we have a 22member violent gang safe Streets Task Force thats part of the Violence Reduction network effort. Were focused on as director jones said the trigger pullers, who are a part of these neighborhood based gangs, but not big, fancy national gangs, but thugs who are a set or crew in a particular neighborhood. Were trying to be strategic to work with the intelligence that the locals are generating, to focus on those and rip them out of the community with the hope that the good people will fill in the space and make the community safer. Ive got 22 folks focused on it. Its too early for me to be able to tell you the success weve had, but its something well watch closely. The cdc has recently complete completingcomplete completed a thorough review. Of whos the universe of folks committing the crimes, where are they coming from what interactions do they have with education, health care, fascinating data set that the governor and his cabinet and i sat down and looked through the other day. Do i have time in the director wants to offer one more answer. Thank you very much. I would like to as it relates to the brn reduction network, we have an operation out of that effort and im, were particularly focused on the larger cities or tri city areas and we are operating out of camden, philadelphia and wilmington trying to assist you with that. After one week of this operation, we have over 684 violent criminals arrested particularly associated with 89 gang members 134 of them are sex offenders, but theres been 48 of them related to homicide also. So, we work with the state and locals to bring those warrants in and then of course, were able with the fugitives, to share information across to the investigative agencies, so the earlier questions of how we interface with each other o, thats the work we push out back to each other. 27 firearms were seized. 1. 86 narcotics were seized and over 47000 currency and that is a part of dismantling some of these org nuysed criminals that are seeking to you know, push drugs out and across. I think the work is really starting to prove beneficial in the violent reductions across the cities. All of us on attacking the corridors that run so its not only just the major cities. Camden can put out 400 officers, but at the end of the day, it pushes so particularly focused on smaller Law Enforcement agencies to get in there and bolster them on the removing of fugitives. Were grateful for your partnership and support. I have a couple of questions that i want to submit for the record. One that deals with laws act funding and the other is the dea interNational Drug enforcement priorities. Weve got to submit them to the record and ask you to hopefully get them back to us within 30 days. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I know were classified. But and i do have question for the record. I just want to say to the men and women who have worked at these wonderful agencies we want to thank them not only for the service we do but we want to thank them that there are people in the United States of america who want to do this work. We owe them a debt of gratitude and therefore, my comments about lifting the budget was not but if there are going to to defend america theres a lot of defense right here in the country for our communities. The second thing is for an issue issues of the Appropriations Committee related to hiring and sustaining the people we hire. The last one is technology. Im really proud of the and other Technology Uses in making our agencies. I think really about 9 11 and that the state troopers stopped one of the terrorists. At that time the databases were so we knew more about a dead beat dad than someone who was planning this horrific attack in the United States. Thats changed and when we looked at the beltway sniper when this whole community was at a standstill was killed coming out of home deepotdepot, this community stopped, but because of the lab, we didnt know it was this the terrorism we didnt if these were multiple killers. Thanks to this lab, and the way we could work with the fbi, we were able to have local Law Enforcement in charge and we were able to catch the people. So, what you do and i could xwo through each one is just amazing and we really need to support you and i look forward to doing it. Another question. Actually, i have a comment that i would like to make to follow up on something that lynn hart said. Because i was just at a hearing in the Armed Services committee with the general whos the head of Southern Command and one of the things he was talking about was the, their work to drugs coming in from Central America and mexico and the impact that additional sequestration cuts are going to have on their ability to continue with that interdiction and support those countries in Central America that are trying to and mexico that are trying to address this effort and i just think its important for us to recognize for the efforts that were not just if those cuts go forward, the impact on the National Security side because of the drugs coming in that will then have an impact all of you are trying to do if we cant address and roll back those cuts from sequestration, so i thought it was important, mr. Chairman, to point out that this has huge domestic potential impact. Thank you. Thank you. Thank the witnesses but well recess and reconvene in closed session as soon as we can get back to the capitol. Here are some of our featured programs this weekend. Saturday starting at 1 00 p. M. Eastern, cspan 2s book tv is live from the university of arizona featuring discussions on race and politics, civil war and by the nation magazine writers with call ins throughout the day with authors. Anded sunday at 1 00, we continue our live coverage with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football. And saturday morning at 9 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan 3 were live from Long Wood University in farmville virginia for the 16th annual civil war seminar. And sunday morning at 9 00, we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and the immigration of confederates to brazil. Find our complete schedule at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. This week cspans in New Hampshire for road to the white house coverage of several potential republican candidates. Tonight at 8 00, well be in manchester for politics and eggs event with lindsey graham. Who spent two days in the Granite State this week. Friday night beginning at 7 45 live on cspan well take you to a house party with jeb bush. On saturday, just after noon, live on cspan Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker at a Republican Party grass roots workshop in concord and sunday night at 9 35, senator ted cruz at the annual Lincoln Reagan dinner. British foreign secretary Phillip Hammond discussed a wide range of issues on tuesday. He talked about the role the u. K. Would play in the Ukraine Russia conflict. The impact of netanyahus visit to the u. S. And the progress of iran Nuclear Negotiations. This is just over an hour and 20 minutes. Order. Can i welcome members of the public to this sitting of the Foreign Affairs committee, and what i strongly suspect will be the last opportunity to question the foreign secretary and his team on world events. Foreign secretary mr. Simon welcome. Good to see you here today. Thank you. Foreign secretary, this Committee Published reports a couple weeks ago on the finance performance and administration of the Foreign Office, which we rather felt that the Foreign Office was at a bit of a crossroads. In our own judgment, it had done a good job over the last five years, but it is spread rather thinly. The choice now is whether or not we maintain that spread but deepen it, which requires extra resources, or we narrow the bandwidth of the Foreign Office and tailor our aspirations accordingly. Which direction do you think we ought to be going . Well, it is certainly the key decision, breadth versus depth. This is not a new discussion in the Foreign Office. I have asked i asked the lead on executive to conduct a review of the network shift policy that was introduced, changing the allocation of resources and opening some new posts, and in the course of doing that piece of work, i discovered that actually this debate has been going on in the Foreign Office not just during the course of this parliament but for many years about the tension between breadth, coverage, and depth, intensity of resources. Clearly and by the way that review suggested that the network shift decisions that have been taken had been broadly the right decisions, and it had broadly satisfactory outcomes. I think as we when we know what our resource envelope for the next parliament is after the next Spending Review i think this is a discussion that the Foreign Office needs to hold once again between breadth of coverage, footprint, and depth of coverage and also around the balance between the resources devoted to the core bilateral and multilateral relationships and what i call the theme thematic resources around the diplomatic themes in london. When i came to this debate i started with a slight prejudice that perhaps we were thinning ourselves too thinly and we needed to put a little bit more depth in some places. I think the evidence suggests that actually weve been quite successful in most places, managing to maintain a high proportion of output, even where we have taken out resources in the interest of broadening the footprint. So i think the jury is still out. I think that its the right question to ask. I dont think from my perspective ive got a definitive answer yet. I dont know whether either of my colleagues has any more to add to that. As you say for a long time. As you always say, a lot will depend on the resources we have to deploy in the next parliament. I dont think i can say more than that. Clearly f there were a substantial reduction in resources, i think the option of just thinning out the current footprint of overseas posts would be challenging. I think if we were talking about a substantial reduction in resources, we would have to look to footprint. Given the Foreign Office has had frankly quite a pounding in the last five years, i hope it wont come to a reduction in resources. Have any preliminary conversations taken place with the treasury on any of these aspects . No the discussion on the next Spending Review clearly will be a discussion for the next parliament. And theres been no discussion about that as yet. If you had to pick a reform that youd like to, you know, commence in the Foreign Office, whats the area youd most like to pick on . Well as ive said and youll appreciate ive been there a relatively short time and we have had quite a lot of other things going on. But if i were looking to start a big new piece of sort of inwardfacing work, it would be around the balance between the resource thats invested in bilateral relationships and the resource thats invested in subject matter expertise. Sort of cross cutting versus vertical agendas. I slightly have the perception that the department in the past has had too much of its resource in the cross cutting thematic areas. That balance has been redressed somewhat over the course of the last five years. But im not sure that weve got that exactly right yet. We may need to put more of our resource into the what i regard as the jewel in the crown, which is the bilateral and multilateral relationships, which the Foreign Office manages. I think as far as the present membership of this committee is concerned, wed probably agree with you. Before i hand it over to my colleagues, could i just bring up the subject of defense spending. You said on the program at the weekend that you remain committed to the 2 figure. Is that the governments position . Well, as you know what i said i think, on the andrew march issue, marsh, to get him in the record, the Prime Minister led the process of urging our nato members to commit too sign up to 2 of gdp. Were one of the very few nato countries, certainly one of only two large nato countries that are currently spending 2 of our gdp on defense. Now, i cant second guess the outcome of either the strategic defense and security review or of the next Spending Review. But clearly we have signed up to that target at newport and not only passively signed up to it we actively sought the adherence to the target of all our other nato partners. So it would be pretty inconsistent if we if a future conservative government had a figure below 2 . Well were clearly committed to maintaining Strong Defense maintaining britains armed forces. As again i said on the show on sunday, during my nearly three years as defense secretary, the Prime Minister was absolutely consistent in making clear to me that he had no appetite for any further cuts in the size of our regular armed forces. The cuts that we had to decide upon in 2010 because of the black hole in the Defense Budget that we inherited were extremely painful. And hes been very clear and consistently clear that he wasnt prepared to see any further cuts. Thank you very much. I want to move on to the ukraine crisis and the u. K. Role visavis that general richard, commander in europe, on the record saying that we appear to be absent from the negotiating table. Why do you think the u. K. Has not been more directly involved in negotiating a diplomatic solution in that crisis . Well firstly im afraid i dont accept the arguments that are being made. I dont general sir richard sheriff has said several things starting on the day he retired from office. I never heard him say anything while he was in office. But hes been quite vocal since he left office. Im not sure that hes in the right position to comment on this. He was a military Deputy Commander in nato. This is a diplomatic discussion thats been going on. We agreed amongst ourselves last summer that the best way of trying to explore the opportunities for a peaceful solution to the ukraine crisis was an approach led by chancellor merkel simply because she is of all the european leaders, the one who has the closest thing to a working relationship with vladimir putin. The discussion took place at the normandy commemorations and for no better reason than that became known as the normandy process. It included the french president equally, for no better reason than it started off in normandy at an event hosted by him. We were not included. The americans were not included. Our view always was that the russians wouldnt have agreed to have the conversation if we and or the americans had been included. And we think our german and french colleagues have done a good job in very difficult circumstances in trying to take forward a negotiated diplomatic solution. Meanwhile, we have played a very significant role in, if you like playing the bad cop role. Weve focused on stiffening the resolve of the European Union on sanctions, working using the resources of our own intelligence agencies to identify targets for sanctions, and weve played a very large role in that process within the European Union. Using our diplomacy to encourage our partners in europe to remain robust on sanctions and to make the argument for sanctions and using our relationship with the United States to make sure that the European Union and the u. S. Sanctions regime remain well alive. Theyre not exactly synchronized, but they are well aligned, and the u. S. Is looking now, i believe, at making some adjustments to their regime so that we are more clearly in lock step. And that requirement will continue of making sure that while the minsk process is taken forward, and we all wish it well, the resolve of the eu to maintain the pressure on russia is strong and unbroken over the coming months. Thats the role weve assigned to ourselves. And just on sort of good cop, bad cop, did you as bad cop have any relevant conversations with both france and germany about the second minsk agreement before a deal was reached, or did you find out about the deal after it was agreed . Well, we had continuous conversations with french and german colleagues, including meetings but i have regular telephone conversations with both my french and german colleagues particularly at political director level. Theyre very close on regular contacts. On this and another range of issues. Were talking to them about the iran negotiations, the minsk process, and many other you know, the isil challenge, many other things besides. So we have very close working relationships. I met all European Union colleagues on friday and saturday. We had a quad meeting in paris on saturday afternoon at which we discussed again all of these issues. By the way i was in kiev on thursday discussing with president poroshenko and the Prime Minister where we should at in the minsk process and how we can be helpful to ukraine in discharging its obligations over the next weeks and months. So channels of communication were open all the way through channels of communication were open at my level at the Prime Ministers level, and at the senior official levels. You mentioned the sanctions regime and our role in that. Do you think you have enough support within the eu to secure, a, early extension of the existing sanctions and, b, commitment to immediate expansion of sanctions if violence reignites . On the latter point, i think there is a very clear acceptance across the European Union ranging from enthusiastic in the case of the hawks to reluctant but understanding in the case of the ducks that if there is a significant breach of ceasefire, an assault the European Union would have to respond and respond immediately with significantly increased regime of sanctions. Beyond that, if we look at the scenario where the minsk process rumbles on more or less, albeit there have already been significant breaches of it from the russian separatist side, but if it more or less rambles on there is i think, a broad acceptance that the logic of minsk is that the sanctions regime would need to be extended to the end of the year because it is only at the end of the year that well reach the point where russia has to comply with the most onerous requirements with it handing back control of the border to ukraine. The timing of extension of the existing sanctions for that period is going to be a subjective discussion within the European Union. Theres certainly some appetite for waiting to see what the level of compliance would be under the obligations of the minsk agreement. Im sure it will be discussed. There will be other opportunities at Foreign Affairs councils and subsequent european councils. A decision doesnt need to be made on extension of sanctions until the end of june, early july. And you mentioned a moment ago the alignment between the United States and europe on the existing sanctions. What discussions have you had with the government of the United States about coordinating the potential expansion of sanctions . As you say, if things rumble on. We have had such discussions. If we decide to extend to expand the range of sanctions, we would, the eu would expect to agree the broad shape of the package with the United States. There might still for very specific reasons be differences at the margin between the two packages, but we would expect them to be broadly aligned. We would certainly expect to act in tandem to make maximum impact. My final question for secretary, on the supply of equipment, the Prime Minister has said that the u. K. Is not at the stage of supplying lethal equipment to the ukraine but did not rule it out completely. At what point would the u. K. Consider supplying lethal equipment to the Ukrainian Government, do you think . Well, to answer your question precisely, i think we would consider it again but not necessarily do it if the circumstances on the ground materially changed. If we found the Ukrainian Army was crumbling, for example, or if we saw clear evidence that the Ukrainian Army was being was under sustained attack and was not holding the line because of inadequacy of equipment and weapons, then we would certainly want to consider again. The Prime Minister has made clear we want to keep our options open here, but we dont believe there is a military solution to this conflict, and were very wary of giving the misimpression that we perhaps do think that if we were to focus on supplying lethal equipment to the ukraines. Equally, we cant afford to see the Ukrainian Armed forces crumble. John stanley. Foreign secretary, the committees on arms export control, of which of course the Foreign Affairs committee is part, in the latest information which it received from the business secretary a couple months ago on the extent arms export licenses to russia in other words the existing export licenses were in place so that there were actually a total of 248 arms export licenses to russia and the value of those and thats only the standard individual licenses. It doesnt include the open individual licenses. Was 169 Million Pounds. Why is the British Government still in this situation with the russians engaging in sequential territorial annexation, quite apart from the human rights dimensions in russia still carrying out such a very extensive arms export trade to russia . And im not sure that im going to be able to answer technically the question why are those licenses still. They are the extent they relate to military or goods to military users. They will be superseded by the sanctions, the arms embargo. So the answer to your question but i dont have it written down here. Ill have to write to the committee. The answer to your question may well be a technical one, that it isnt necessary to cancel the licenses because theyve actually been superseded by the embargo. But if i may, ill unless miraculously the answer to that question should come to me during the course of this hearing, in which ill inform the committee. If not, ill write. Foreign secretary, all i can point out to you is youve said superseded by the embargo. This is information provided by the business secretary on the 15th of december last year and the 21st of january. So either youre saying that the secretarys information is wildly out of date or possibly youre not fully informed as to the scale of licenses today to russia. Im simply making the point that it may be that the extent licenses simply sit there, effectively extent but ineffective but no goods can be exported due to the embargo which as it were a superior instrument to the licenses. But i believe that we may be able to find the answer to this question during the course of this hearing. Ill wait for the answer. But i have to say, in the extensive correspondence weve had on extent licenses theyre licenses which are still up and running, and they do not include licenses which are either suspended or of being revoked. And that is i understand that. And i dont think it would be necessary i think it would be in fact, im certain it would be the case that if you were an exporter of an item for which you held a relevant license but that item was now subject to an embargo, notwithstanding your license, you would not be able to export that item. I await your letter, foreign secretary. Is it still the governments policy to stop exports of equipment to russia only that which might be used in ukraine . Can you be more specific about equipment . Do you mean military equipment . The totality of arms exports. Previous statements that have been made by ministers is that the block of arms exports to russia is in relation to both military goods which might be used in ukraine. In other words a very significant geographical limitation applying to that policy. No, the eu embargo is a ban on the export of jewel use goods to military end users and for military end use in russia. Thank you. Can i turn now to the issue of exports to ukraine. You said in answer to the previous question that the governments policy remains to export only nonlethal equipment that being the case, when the government gave export license approval in december last year relatively recently, to the 75 saxon armored personnel carriers, was not the government fully aware that they were going to be armed once they got to ukraine . No we had no knowledge of the intention, which has been announced but i understand not carried out to fit light machine guns on these vehicles. But since we have become aware of that weve reviewed the license in respect of these vehicles against the consolidated criteria and have concluded that there are no grounds to revoke the license on the basis of that information. Well, foreign secretary, youll be aware that mr. Alexander tesch knee yov has stated publicly, these saxons have arrived without any armament. Surely the British Government was aware that that was the intention of the Ukrainian Defense ministry. No, the government was not aware when the original license was granted. Were clearly aware now. But this would be no different for supplying land rovers and discovering that they intended to mount machine guns on the roofs of the land rovers. The assessment was made that supplying the vehicles would not increase the offensive capacity of the Ukrainian Army. That is the relevant criteria against which we have to judge this export. So the position is that the export of these vehicles without any weaponry on them is licensed and will be permitted to go ahead. The Crucial Point in terms of the governments policy that mounting a weapon on them turns them from being nonlethal to being lethal. No, i think sorry can i just continue . Is it not a matter of genuine concern to you and should it not be that the Foreign Office and the British Government are clearly so ill informed abouted intentions of the Ukrainian Government that they were apparently in the december of last year apparently wholly oblivious as to what was the clear intention of the Ukrainian Government in rchtespect to the sanctions. With respect, we now know it was the clear intention because theyve now told us its their clear intention, and we are now a aprized of all the facts. They didnt make this clear at the time when they originally contracted to make this purchase of vehicles. And the i dont need to tell you as chairman of the committee on armed exports that the point at which the assessment is made of the capability of the equipment is the point of export. And we judge that the applying the consolidated criteria to this second batch of 55 vehicles does not change the decision that they are still eligible for export licensing, none of the consolidated criteria is engaged on the basis that the vehicles carry no armaments. Thank you. Foreign secretary, last week just before your Foreign Affairs Council Meeting i was at the parliamentary meeting. And we had a lot of discussion there about the concept of hybrid warfare. Can i take you to your remarks yesterday where you said, quote, there is a hard red line protecting the baltic states. And you also said any russian incursion would entitle the baltic countries to seek to invoke article five of the washington treaty. You were asked which is war and you said and mr. Putin knows that very well. Can i put it to you that article five of the nato treaty is not necessarily clear in the sense that it refers to an armed attack against one or more of the allies. If you are damaging the electricity grid, if you are undermining the infrastructure of a country, if you are using special forces in covert activities but not openly attacking, is it not hard to determine at which point there is an armed attack on a nato party . Yes, it is. And thats a subject as you well know, of a lot of discussion on both sides of the atlantic about how hybrid attacks are to be treated and indeed attributed because it isnt always that straightforward to be clear about the attribution of such attacks. And i think our position is that we are not clear that being completely unambiguous about this is helpful. A degree of am big youty can be strategically advantageous. Were also clear that as committee will know, that the response in any case to any attack to be lawful in International Law has to be proportionate. And therefore, this might go as much to the nature of the response that would be made to a hybrid attack, if it were attributed to a particular state as to whether or not there should be a response. I think theres a really very interesting intellectual debate about when and whether it would be appropriate to respond i can netically to a nonkinetic attack, however serious. Thats not just a question of International Law. Its also a question of political reality, public opinion. And i think this is a very interesting and real debate that we need to have. Is there a consensus amongst the nato ministers as to when article five would be triggered or is there an ongoing intellectual debate, as you put it . Well, im sorry to answer the question i suspect rather technically, but i think any member state can seek to invoke article five. Article five is only considered invoked if all Member States by consensus agree that the member state seeking to invoke is under armed attack. I think thats the correct that is the position of the washington treaty. So consensus is required for there to be deemed to be an armed attack on a member state. But can i put it to you for a country like latvia or estonia with a substantial russianspeaking minority amongst its population right on the front line with russia, facing a president who has shown that he is actually repaired to admit that he planned the annexation of the territory of ukraine and who has said that the collapse, the ending of the soviet union was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, that there is understandably deep concern about not vaccine clarity from the United States, United Kingdom, france and the other big nato partners about under what circumstances article five would be invoked. Now im not sure thats right. I was with you until the last ten seconds. Of course, we understand the concern that there is in the baltic states. Nato members and the u. K. s been leading among them have sought to reassure our baltic partners. For example, by offering strike aircraft for the Baltic Air Policing mission, by taking part in military exercises in baltic countries and poland. Well continue to do so. But i think the interest the baltic countries are best served by a degree of strategic ambiguity around the asymmetric warfare question and by a very clear and unambiguous distinction between nato countries and nonnato countries. One of the challenges i think we face around the management of the ukraine crisis is that ukraine is not a nato country. While we want to show our clear support for the ukrainians in their struggle to defend their sovereignty, we must be always clear that there is an air gap between the kind of support that we can offer to ukraine as a nonnato country and the kind of support that we would and should offer to a nato member if it faced a similar kind of challenge. Secretary, were coming up to a general election, and after march the 30th the house of commons is dissolved. And there is a convention about parliamentary approval for military action, which has seemed to develop over recent years with regard to syria with regard to iraq. If a crisis developed in the period after march the 30th and before a new government is formed, whenever that is, it could be several months, how are we going to handle that situation if there is a case of clear intervention of the United Kingdom alongside nato partners or even unilaterally in terms of defense interests . Well, the convention thats grown up, and it was established by de facto by the last government and weve confirmed that we acknowledge it is that where it is possible in terms of time and in terms of the need for secrecy to consult Parliament Parliament will be consulted. And where parliament is not sitting, it clearly will not be possible to consult parliament and in no circumstances would it be right to postpone military intervention that was required for the safety and security of britain or the alliance because we were unable to consult parliament because it was dissolved at the time. So in compliance with that convention, my understanding is that it would require the government to bring that issue to parliament as soon as the new parliament was formed for what would be retrospective endorsement. Would there be any plan to consult with the opposition . I mean, that depends on the circumstances, but when matters of great importance and certainly military intervention would always be a matter of great importance, where the circumstances allow, it would be usual in any circumstances even while parliament was sitting, to engage with the opposition on privy council terms. Okay. Well, hopefully it wont be necessary, but lets hope. Can i take you to the position with regard to wider relations with russia. Russia is a permanent member of the security council. Its part of the quartet with the middle east process. Its part of the e3plus3 negotiations with regard to iran. Are you confident that we can still cooperate effectively with russia on those issues and on afghanistan and other matters given the way that russia is now behaving with regard to breaching the held sin i can agreement and breaching the budapest memorandum and other International Agreements it signed up to . It is more difficult, but weve made a clear decision that our approach will be to engage with russia where our Vital National interests require us to engage on a casebycase basis. Many of the examples youve given are such cases where our National Interest requires us to engage. And the russians have given pretty clear signals that they want to compartmentalize and treat the dispute we have over their behavior in ukraine as separate from the not necessarily terribly deep relations we have over things like syria and the quite sensible relationship we have in the eastern Nuclear Negotiations. I think it suits both sides to maintain practical working relationships where it suits both sides. Do you think its a fair summary to say that were witnessing the emergence of iranian militias as one of the main forces in the country, particularly [ inaudible ]. Trying to recapture territory. Okay. I think iranianaligned, or broadly iranian sympathetic shia fought militias have been for a long time probably one of the most if not the most significant forces in iraq. And thats part of the problem that the government of iraq has. And i think there is evidence in some of the military action thats been going on around in tikrit of a little bit more than iranianaligned militias. We are seeing Iranian Forces engaged in the conflict around tikrit playing a direct role, Iranian Regular forces. Thats another step. Of course, while one can understand that the government of iraq facing the challenges that it does with the Iraqi Security forces and anxious to make some progress in recovering control of territory, is tempted to welcome any assistance, we have always been clear that iraq will only be a successful state if it manages to develop a form of governance that embraces all three of the main communities, kurds, shia and sunni. And to the extent the Iraqi Government appears to be allowing itself and its authority to become dependent on interventions by Iranian Regular forces, that is likely to make that much more challenging, much more difficult. Theres nothing new theres nothing new on the shia militias. Sections of them have been fairly close over long periods of time. Yes, there is nothing new about this, and the presence of the shia militias and the role of the shia militias has been established for many years. Do you perceive it as a problem in the long term . It is potentially a problem. In an ideal world the government would be raising sunni forces to balance the shia militias and integrating them together in a new Iraqi Security forces. But we dont live in an ideal world, and the reality is probably going to be less perfect than that. But the government will have to show that it is not beholden to direction from tehran enforced by the power of the shia militia. If it cant show that, it will not gain the trust of the sunni population who are present in large part in the areas which are occupied currently by isil and will have to be part of the process of evicting isil from that territory. Relationships between the krg and baghdad seem to be a bit fragile again. What do you think is the reason for that . The oil price, principally. I think last autumn the major progress was made but a deal was done that was predicated on 100 oil. When oil is the currency of deals, suddenly the value of the currency is virtually halved and you get a problem. There isnt enough to go around to do what everybody thought. If the kurds deliver the oil they said they were going to deliver to the baghdad government their own budget will take a massive hit because the residual oil theyre able to sell is worth half what it was. Equally f the baghdad government doesnt get the oil it was promised from kurdistan, the hit to its budget of from the Falling Oil Price will be amplifyied by the reduction in supplies from kurdistan. So im afraid that is at the root of the problem. Im visiting both iraq and kurdistan in the next couple of weeks. I will have discussions with both sides as to where they are on their private discussion about how to try and solve this problem. Is the fco on the ground in iraq trying to mend fences . We have a good representation in erbil. I monitor that regularly and i hear good things about the role that our people on the ground in erbil are playing. And i have been able to crosscheck that with members of the krg administration that they are getting the access to and input from our mission in erbil they seek. They told me theyre very satisfied. And there was a lot of publicity over the yazidis a continuing subject for documentaries on television. I was very unclear when i was asking questions about the plight of the yazidis what we did to try and protect them, what we are doing now to try and protect them, and in fact, all the religious minorities of iraq who are under threat. I think in the case of the yazidi, going back to when they were trapped on mt. Sinjar, we were involved with the United States and others in air drops of food and emergency supplies to them. And supporting krg forces in trying to secure and escape route from the mountain for them. And it became clear over time that the overwhelming majority of those that wanted to get off the mountain had been able to do so. And i think in the north, certainly, our engagement with krg forces the leverage that engagement gives us the anyway quite generous instinct of the krg forces towards minority communities in the north is the best support to offer to those minority communities. But of course it remains the case that those who belong to religious minorities in areas controlled by isil can expect a horrendous fate to await them. As the Iraqi Government eventually rolls back isil control, i have no doubt that we will uncover atrocities that we are not currently aware of. Im afraid thats a horror that awaits us in the future. We also know that the position of yazidi women and the fact that many of them have been sold into slavery. Weve had accounts from some who managed to escape talking about the horrors of their existence under isil. Are we actually doing anything on the ground to try and rescue some of those women . I dont think there are any we dont have people on the ground in any numbers. We have trainers supporting, and technical advisers supporting krg forces but we do not have significant boots on the ground. Neither do any of our western allies. Not least because neither the kurds nor the iraqis want outside fighting forces on the ground. So we are dependent on what, in this case, the Kurdish Peshmerga forces can do. They are seeking to liberate isilcontrolled territory, but im not aware of any sort of specific rescue missions or raids being planned. It is a Systematic Program to roll back isil control and retake territory that has been lost to isil. Is only just, if i might, add at the other end of whats an absolutely ghastly spectrum. Were doing what we can to provide a number of other countries sort of Counseling Services for women who have been brutalized in the form you describe. It is happening on a horrendous scale, as you said. There will be a lot more to be done. The issue is access. I know the pyd were active along with the peshmerga in taking part in some of those rescues and that theyve also helped the peshmerga in other situations. Theyre still the prescribed organization in this country. Is that still our view . If so why . They are still prescribed. At the risk of sounding bureaucratic we dont go into cant get into sort of who is being considered and who isnt being considered for prescription. They nonetheless continue to have a difficult relationship with turkey. So its not an entirely sort of straightforward government. Its also a matter for the home secretary, of course. Yes ive had the answer from the home secretary. The iraqi kurds didnt attend januarys antiisil conference in london. And this caused considerable hurt to them apparently and also annoyance. We were aware they would not be part of the delegation. Did we ever have any responsibility to persuade the iraqis to take a more inclusive approach . Well, we did clearly we couldnt invite them in their own right. It was a conference of nations. And we did encourage the iraqis to include kurdish elements in their delegation and we will encourage them to take an inclusive approach. Thank you. On that inclusive approach point and around the operation thats currently ongoing in tikrit, would you say thats for the coalition certainly one thats a test to see the intentions of both as to how they win the peace in tikrit when they eventually drive isil out and it would actually signal to the coalition as to the intent from baghdad as to how they are going to behave towards both with the sunni population and with kurdistan as well. I think thats right. It will be a test case and its very important that its handled correctly. One of the messages i will be wanting to reinforce with the Prime Minister when i go to baghdad shortly is precisely that. There is always the danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And the engagement of Iranian Regular forces in the battle lfor tikrit is a further complexity in this question. Foreign secretary because youve had to cut your stay here with us short for half an hour for perfectly understandable reasons, and im tipped off there may be a vote coming as well. Id be grateful if colleagues could truncate their questions and perhaps the answers could be nicely focused. Andrew. Good afternoon, foreign secretary. Could i turn to syria. The Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee last month that it was the policy of the government to build up forces of moderate opposition to bring about transition whereby syria moves away from assad to something better. In what way are we doing that . How are we helping the moderate opposition in practical terms . And are we actually dealing with the same people that we were dealing with a couple of years ago, or has it all changed . What is the current position . Because i think for most of us its confusing as to where we are today. I was going to say confusing is the current position. The moderate opposition is a Broad Coalition of a large number of often very small groups. Its not a fixed firmament. The Political Leadership is not necessarily well aligned with the leadership of the principle military groups. We have provided weve allocated 46 Million Pounds of nonlethal assistance to the moderate opposition this year. Mainly to help them to manage areas that they are in control of to make sure there are proper Public Services and policing and rescue services and so on provided in those areas. But we expect to make our main impact through a commitment to engagement u. S. Led training and equipping program for the moderate opposition. Youll remember the u. S. Congress last autumn allocated 500 million as an initial funding for that program. It has been quite slow to get going, not least because of the difficulty of setting up mechanisms to vet candidates for training and equipping, but the program is now beginning to get into place, and the u. K. Remains committed to playing a role in that training, which will take place outside syria in probably in a combination of turkey, jordan and saudi arabia. We all know that assad is leading a very bad regime. Wed all like to see him go. But in the short term is it the right policy to work so closely with opposition when you consider the main opposition to the west is now isil and actually not assad . Well weve got its inconvenient, but weve got to fight both enemies. Is that sensible . Should we not be focusing on isil . Theres a moral reason why we shouldnt do that, and theres a practical reason. The moral reason is that assad has killed 200,000 of his citizens. Hes barrel bombing them on a regular basis. His conduct is completely inexcusable, and it would be wrong of us to align ourselves with the regime. We wouldnt do it anywhere else. We wouldnt say, as a matter of convenience, well work with this brutal regime thats killing its people, and we shouldnt do it in syria. But theres a practical reason as well. Assad and his brutality is what gave birth to isil and gives sucker to isil. And any sense that we were aligning ourselves with the regime would kill stone dead the attempts particularly in iraq, to win over moderate sunni opinion to the government of iraq and the Coalition Effort to roll isil back. So im afraid were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Were dealing with bad and worse, and im not quite sure which one is which, but we have to tackle both. And we cant make compromises with one in the fight against the other. How about the kurds in syria what are they expected to do if they dont protect themselves and defend themselves from all the chaos and the violence thats going on . How are the curds meant to proceed if we dont give them some recognition for what theyre trying to achieve . Well, the kurds have the potential to be an important part of the moderate opposition in syria, fighting against the regime and fighting against isil. Historically, they have occupied, i think its probably fair to say, a somewhat ambiguous relationship with the regime where the regime left them alone and they left the regime alone. I hope that were moving into a phase where the Kurdish Forces in syria will play a more engaged part in the broad syrian moderate opposition and help to liberate syria as well as defending it against isil. On a completely separate subject, if i may youll be aware that yesterday was commonwealth day. Indeed. Is there any reason why the foreign and Commonwealth Office was not able to fly the flag of the commonwealth for that important occasion . Were often asked to fly flags by various organizations and to support various causes. Its a little bit like the wearing of emblems by individuals. While any one single request may seem imminently sensible and worthy of support, looked at in the round across the entire range of requests to provide support, there has to be some kind of order. There have to be some kind of rules. And the rule that we have in the Foreign Office is that the union flag flies every day on the superior flag pole and flags of the overseas territories and the home nations fly on the day in the year which is most important to them, usually a national day or a saints day. We do not fly flags of other organizations or to commemorate other events. But that of course is a new rule that the government brought in to fly the flags of the overseas territories and indeed the four nations it of the United Kingdom. So why not the commonwealth . It is after all the Foreign Commonwealth Office. If i may say so, isnt it also the case that we fly the flag at the European Union from british embassyies and high commissions . If were going to be consistent, shouldnt with instruct embassies and high commissions to not fly the flag of the eu if they cant fly the commonwealth flag . On that last question the position is that outside of European Union countries, British Missions overseas are able to fly the European Union emblem alongside the union flag where there is a case for doing so in terms of the local environment, local traditions, local culture, or where we are, for example, sharing an Embassy Compound with another eu member state. But ambassadors or heads of mission have to make a Business Case for flying that eu emblem. Last question. Briefly, please. That is surely not consistent with your previous answer, foreign secretary. But on the day her majesty is here for the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey surely we should now make it a tradition that the Foreign Commonwealth Office fly the flag. Would you make that change before the general election . Would you consider doing that . Weve made a decision about flag flying for this year and we will look again at the end of the year as we always do for flag flying rules in 2016. But i know that a number of people are disappointed that the commonwealth flag wasnt flying. But if we were to fly the commonwealth flag on commonwealth day, i can promise you we will be inundated with requests to fly other flags and other emblems in support of other causes and other organizations. Thank you very much. Secretary, a number of the Committee Members met recently with the ambassador with responsibility for libya. That briefing left us incredibly depressed. Are there any grounds for optimism about the u. N. Mediated talks between the parties in libya . Yeah, i think there are some grounds. If youd asked me probably in early january what the chances of getting the two sides together around a table were, i would have said pretty slim or even nonexistent. When i met the special representative, i have to be candid. Having listened to him, i wished him good luck but i didnt expect him to succeed. And i think hes done a pretty remarkable job aided by the Prime Ministers own special representative, whos got some very good contact with some of the players. So we have at least got people talking. We have at least got a focus now on a catalytic event that the growing presence of isil in libya, which is i think focusing the minds of people on both sides of the civil war. The Division Bell has gone. I can still just about hear. Which is a nuisance, to say the least. Im grateful colleagues could hurry back as soon as theyve voted. Thank you. Foreign secretary you were being quizzed on libya. Thank you foreign secretary. Do you agree with the u. N. Special envoy that peacekeepers will be in libya, and if so, has the uk government made any commitments to a peacekeeping force . We havent made any commitments. We discussed this at the European Union Foreign Ministers meeting on friday, saturday. If there is an interim government formed and there is a peace to keep, i think we recognize discussing this in European Union that there would be a strong expectation that the European Union would take the lead in providing peacekeepers. That is not to say a military force to subdue the warring factions, but more of a policing force to maintain a peace that had been established and libya is very much europes business. Most a significant proportion of the people trafficking and trafficking of arms, drugs and other things, into europe, is now coming through libya which is basically one large ungoverned space with roots through to the gulf of guinea, which is the source of many of these things. And it is very much in europes interest to help to secure libya and ensure that the sovereign coast of the mediterranean is properly policed all the way along. And so clearly there is some concrete steps and discussions around peacekeeping force . Not yet. Because there is no peace to keep at this stage. Im afraid were still quite a long way away i think from that being the case. But all im saying is that i think there is a recognition across the European Union that it would be to europe that the world looked to provide such a force if there was a peace to keep in the future. So that element was discussed, were there any other element that were discussed last friday around concrete steps of lib why toya to win the peace . We there are a number of strands, there are outside players involved, of course, in supporting both sides. And seeking to apply diplomatic pressure on outside players to seek to minimize rather than fuel the conflict is always important. I shall be traveling later this week to egypt and i hope to be able to discuss this matter with president assisi directly. There are concerns about the protecting the assets of the libyan people in the form of the assets of the central bank to ensure that they dont get acquired by either side in the civil war. So there are a number of strands of work that the International Community is focused on. Thank you. You mentioned, foreign secretary, the role of the special envoy to the libyan political transition from power. How much time has he spent in libya, since his appointment . Well, i cant answer that question off hand. I could write to you, im sure. I think it is not simply about how much time he spends in libya, though. Some of these meetings are taking place outside libya. Most of them are taking place outside libya, meetings in rome, meetings in malta ra bat meetings in tunisia meetings in cairo. I think that would understate what hes doing to look only at the time spent in libya. Time spent in libya is restricted by security considerations. And talking to other states involved like the ua and so farther. It does make it challenging to be able to forge meaningful relationships. The point about his appointment and the reason hes been able to play an important contribution is he already has those established relationships. Hes been able to provide significant support early on by acting as a liaison with the groups that where he has good established relationships, trying to persuade them to take a constructive part in the dialogue that they are launching. Worth adding if i may that our ambassador is also very closely involved and he was working with those people on the ground for a number of years before he took up this position. The links are there. You touched upon the issue of libya being on the doorstep of europe, do you consider this the migration issue to be a serious threat to uk security and if so how would we contribute to the International Levels to counter this threat, specifically on the migration issue . The migration challenge from libya is a threat to the whole of europe not just the uk but to the extent that travel is facilitated within europe. Obviously irregular migrants arriving in italy are potentially a threat to the uk. And were all mindful of the terrible loss of life that has occurred through illegally trafficked people meeting dreadful fate in unsuitable and unsafe vessels crossing the mediterranean. And we believe that the only way to stem this is at source to tackle the traffickers, the smugglers, the extortionists who prey on these people along the way. And to seek to work in their countries of origin fairly focused group of origin to try to improve conditions there and to reduce the impulsion to travel, if you were. Foreign secretary whenlast week he said, i quote we need a policy on dealing with isil in libya. It is still the case that the government does not have a policy on dealing with isil in libya or if it does have a policy, can you tell us what it is . I mean, policy the policy, the desire is to establish a government of National Unity behind which the International Community can then get in the fight against isil. And one of the one of the offers on the table early on is that the International Community is willing to take some risks now in getting early behind a government of National Unity to help it to tackle the threat to libya from isil and other extremist groups, which are becoming established in that country. Do you think there is any so if i can elaborate. I am aware that thats you know, sounds slightly wishful thinking, we would like to be there a nice government of National Unity and we would support it to deal with the isil problem. We have also discussed in eu Foreign Ministers the obvious fact that we cant wait forever for a government of National Unity to be formed and that if the initiative does not succeed or the talks break down, or we see no progress happening within a reasonable period of time, we will have to look at alternative counterterrorism strategies to deal with the specific terrorism threat from those isilrelated groups in libya. And do you think realistically there is any real prospect of forming a government of National Unity in libya which appears to be in a semior more than semi state where the people with the guns are basically running the country while it is going bankrupt . I think there is cause for some moderate optimism, but i wouldnt put it any higher than that. I dont plan to be an expert on libya. But those who are tell me that the principle protagonists in this civil war are not motivated by ideology. Theyre motivated by oldfashioned motives territory, tribal loyalties, economic interests. And i take that as a positive. Very difficult to reconcile people who are fighting each other on ideology but if people are really fighting over territory and money and oil it is easier to find solutions which divide the divide the riches and this is a rich country. So i would be moderately optimistic but no more than that cautiously optimistic that there could be a chance of a government of National Unity. I do think that the presence of isil in the country, the inevitability that there will be continued intervention by outside patterns against isil in libya, if a Libyan Government is not formed that is able to deal with the problem itself, i do think those are helpful points of pressure on the two sides in the civil war to think very hard about whether it is in their collective best interest to try and resolve their differences and work together. Okay. Foreign secretary, can we turn to iran and the Nuclear Negotiations going on at the moment . Quite clearly theyre very sensitive point and youre not in a position to divulge anything, thats understandable. Do you think the step by the u. S. Congress is a dose of healthy skepticism or is it a spanner in the works . It could become a spanner in the works. I think as we come towards the endgame, over the next few
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.