Examination of Witness (Questions 1420
- 1439)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
VICE ADMIRAL
ALAN WEST
1420. Do you have guidelines or instructions
to your 5,000 staff to use the same words to mean the same thing?
Are there rules about how you refer to things?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Not in absolutely precise
terms. I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I do not give
them precision guidance on what words to use at all times, I certainly
do not do that.
1421. In the Legg Report at 6.28 and 6.30
and elsewhere there is conflicting evidence about who said what
and even if they did say this, that or the other what actually
did it mean. I think that is the problem I have, and I suspect
the Committee has, and what I am trying to establish is whether
or not there is a deliberately precise use of the English language
in your line of business or whether each person refers to things
in his own way?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I think if within the
MoD we were giving a precise statement about something we knew
everything about, then there is very detailed language. But very
often the intelligence I am reporting might just be one little
snippet. *** the job of my people, is to send that snippet widely
so that people are aware of it.
1422. Can I turn to one other matter? Major
Hicks worked alongside Rupert Bowen when he returned to Sierra
Leone; he came into contact with him?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Yes, he did meet him,
yes.
1423. Was Major Hicks at that stage aware
of Rupert Bowen's intelligence links?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) His previous job?
1424. Yes.
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I do not know.
1425. Would it be possible to find out?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Yes, ***
1426. Whether he was aware or whether he
was not aware, what was his working relationship with Mr Bowen?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) As I understand it, he
talked to everybody *** to provide military-type advice to the
British High Commissioner or Ambassador, because normally there
is not a DA there. ***
1427. *** It would appear from what we have
heard and what we have read that Mr Bowen was also in the business
of getting information from other people. Was there a two-way
process between Major Hicks and Mr Bowen?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) *** I do not know what
exactly happened in their conversations, ***
Chairman
1428. ***?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***
Mr Wilshire
1429. Can we be absolutely clear that Major
Hicks at no time provided Mr Bowen with information?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) *** I do not know because
I was not privy to his conversation.
1430. A third and final point, if I may,
Chairman, you referred earlier on to the secure communications
*** that *** would have been available to Mr Penfold but Mr Penfold
did not take advantage of it. He would have known that this was
available?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I would be surprised
if he did not know it was available, *** Whether he did or not,
I do not know, again I would have to ask that question ***
1431. Could you do so for us please?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Yes.[7]
1432. Because if the answer to that is yes,
can you suggest why it might be that this particular facility
was not taken advantage of?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I think Mr Penfold is
the best person to answer that. I would be speculating. I suppose
possibly the only thing he might be concerned about is that it
would inevitably go through the MoD rather than straight back
to the FCO.
Chairman
1433. A rival organisation!
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Not rival, no. There
are at times sensitivities. I am speculating here on reasons,
I just do not know. I am not really the person to ask that, Mr
Penfold would be.
Mr Wilshire
1434. Would Major Hicks have been obliged
to answer every question asked of him by Mr Penfold?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I think "obliged"
is the wrong word. He is an acting Lieutenant Colonel who has
been told to work closely with the British High Commissioner.
Certainly when I was a Lieutenant Commander and Commander I thought
these people were really rather God-like and unless he told me
to do something which was either dishonest or illegal, I think
I would have probably done my utmost to do what he asked me to
do because that would have seemed to be my duty.
1435. Is a High Commissioner in a position
to give instructions *** or is it an informal working relationship?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) If it comes in terms
of direct military orders, that is quite a difficult area. I think
he can give instructions to him in the sense he is sent there
to assist the British High Commissioner. If, for example, he said,
"I would like you to go out and organise the escape of 42
Brit ex-pats who are stuck in a hotel", I would expect my
man to go and assist in doing that.
1436. But the officer does not have to tell
the Ambassador or the High Commissioner everything he knows?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) He does not have to tell
him everything he knows. There is no explicit, "Everything
you know must be told to the Ambassador", but in terms of
the normal working relationship I would be extremely surprised
if the officer was not talking with the British High Commissioner
very, very regularly and they were assessing the situation and
discussing what was going on. I would be extremely surprised if
Mr Penfold and the officer were not in each other's minds in terms
of what the situation was; very surprised.
Mr Illsley
1437. Has the term "non-lethal equipment"
ever been used or is it in common parlance within the military?
Is it a phrase which is used but not often?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I have heard the expression
"non-lethal equipment" before.
1438. But it is not in common parlance?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Certainly I have not
used it an immense amount in my time in the military.
1439. Would it be common parlance within
people in the Foreign Office?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I just do not know, you
would have to ask the Foreign Office.
7 Note by Witness: During his time in Conakry
Major Hicks' secure communications were used on nine occasions
by Mr Penfold to pass diptels to the FCO, and when in Freetown,
subsequently, on one occasion. Back
| 
