Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1500
- 1519)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
MS ANN
GRANT and MR
CRAIG MURRAY
1500. But it was a fairly large meeting,
was it not?
(Ms Grant) Yes, an inter-departmental meeting.
1501. And you had Foreign Office staff there,
I believe.
(Ms Grant) They are listed here.
1502. Mr Everard and Mr Andrews.
(Ms Grant) And Mr Penfold.
1503. At that meeting was there any discussion
about the threat of the use of force in the settlement of the
Sierra Leone position?
(Ms Grant) I really cannot say and I am afraid
I do not have the record of that meeting with me.
1504. But if I was to say it would appear
that that is likely you would not deny it, would you?
(Ms Grant) I put it in the context of the explanation
I gave earlier, i.e. that we had a policy which was to pursue
the restoration of President Kabbah by peaceful means. We also
had the contingent possibility in the future that that policy
might not work and that we might have to move to authorising the
use of force. So I would not be surprised if both options had
been discussed at that meeting.
1505. And it might have been possible that
somebody at that meeting said that he thought that the use of
force would be helpful.
(Ms Grant) That is certainly the case. People
can make all sorts of propositions at meetings.
1506. You would know if you read the minutes
perhaps.
(Ms Grant) Yes, and I may have read the minutes
at the time. I was not there myself and I have not read them since.
1507. If that is the case, and you are not
denying it, can I then turn to the letter which you received slightly
earlier than that, on 4 November, from Lord Avebury. This is referring
to an article that had been in the Toronto Globe and Mail
and it was quite definite, was it not, about the threat of the
sale of arms to Sierra Leone?
(Ms Grant) If I recall, yes, it was.
1508. If I was the Minister replying to
an Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons I would find it
very strange that I did not indicate there were these possibilities
and yet in both the Adjournment Debate in the House of Lords and
with Mr Lloyd in the House of Commons none of that was implied
at all. Why?
(Ms Grant) As I say, there was no problem in my
mind about the possible use of force but it was obvious to me
and to most of my colleagues that it would have to be legal. So
the possibility of the use of force had already been raised in
the context of ECOWAS's policy, it was already on the table. The
extent to which we could support it would depend on the success
of the other two bits of the policy, sanctions and the diplomatic
negotiations.
1509. But before those Adjournment Debates
you would have had the meeting on 19 January where Mr Murray claims
that Colonel Spicer was told quite strongly that the use of force
would be quite wrong.
(Ms Grant) That is quite right. As our policy
stood the use of force was quite wrong. If it was to be changed
there would have to be various legal moves, including a new Security
Council Resolution, to make it acceptable. I do not think there
was any confusion.
1510. Would it not have arisen from Mr Spicer
referring to the contract that he knew existed and which Mr Penfold
knew existed? I believe by that date it should have been known
by the Foreign Office that the arms were going to be supplied.
(Ms Grant) Perhaps Mr Murray would like to answer
that as he was the one at the meeting on 19 January. I think you
are destined to imply that we should have briefed Ministers on
the possible use of force. I think the possibility of the use
of force was clearly logged. Certainly Mr Lloyd was well aware
of that. I think what we were doing with Spicer——
1511. Did you say Mr Lloyd was well aware
of that?
(Ms Grant) He was well aware of the possible use
of force by ECOWAS. That was already on the table because of ECOWAS's
own policy. What we were discussing was the extent to which we
could support that. There was no confusion that at that point,
when the resolution was read out to Mr Spicer, we were talking
about the current policy in which the use of force was ruled out.
There was no confusion about that.
1512. Toronto Globe and Mail on August
1, you had it in November, says quite clearly that "they
attained documents showing conspiracy to use mercenaries to overthrow
Sierra Leone's military ruler and the supply of arms". If
that is the case, if I was a Minister I would be very surprised
if I had given that sort of reply in an Adjournment Debate to
those two replies which your department had produced to Ministers.
(Ms Grant) What reply are you referring to?
1513. The Adjournment Debate in the House
of Lords and with Lloyd in the House of Commons.
(Ms Grant) I think those two debates accurately
reflected our policy at the time, and I am not quite sure what
the point is.
1514. What I am trying to say to you is
that I find it very surprising that in those two Adjournment Debates
reference to these possibilities——the Globe and
Mail article was dismissed absolutely, it was proved to be
incorrect and the contract was known before the date of the supply
of arms. Surely Ministers should have been told of that.
(Ms Grant) We did not know of the contract at
that time as far as I am aware.
Chairman
1515. With respect, you knew from August
1 of allegations that a British company was likely to be involved
in the supply of arms, even in early August that was known to
you and, nevertheless, the Foreign Office played a leading part
in a UN Resolution which would have barred that.
(Ms Grant) I think we not only knew of the allegation
but we had provided a response to it when we replied to our colleagues
in Ottawa who had sent us the Globe and Mail article. I
think our line was were we to have evidence of any such breach
of the arms embargo we would refer it to the appropriate authority.
1516. This was in July after the Government
announced its tightened policy on arms sales and yet from August
1 you did not think it worthwhile bringing such allegations to
the attention of Ministers until there was a specific Adjournment
Debate in March.
(Ms Grant) I think what we had done was to take
note of and produce a line to take in response to press allegations
that were not followed up. There were not any other allegations
until we got the allegations from Lord Avebury and, of course,
at almost the same time the note from Mr Penfold——
Sir Peter Emery
1517. Ms Grant, in answer to my initial
question about telling Ministers about the supply of arms you
said the department really did not know about that, but that surely
cannot be factually correct because even if it was not on 30 December
that the contract from Mr Penfold was supplied to the Office,
it was certainly supplied to the Office by the meeting of 19 January.
Do you mean to say that Mr Penfold throughout this meeting on
the 19 January never referred to the fact that there was a contract
for the supply of arms? Whatever you may say about Mr Penfold,
I cannot believe he was that inefficient.
(Ms Grant) The meeting on 19 January was between
Mr Murray and Mr Spicer.
1518. I am sorry, it was 23 December.
(Ms Grant) On 23 December, as I say, we did not
get a full report or, indeed, any report of that meeting in the
department either orally or in writing. That is a meeting that
Mr Penfold attended alone.
1519. Colonel Spicer was at the meeting
of the nineteenth and he makes it quite clear in his evidence
that he supplied the information about the contract and the supply
of arms. I find it very difficult to believe that he would have
had a meeting where that existed without that being the case.
Mr Murray, you were there.
(Mr Murray) At the meeting on 19 January Mr Spicer
did not say that he had a contract already signed. I do not believe
that the department at that stage knew there was a contract already
signed. I certainly did not know at that stage there was a contract
already signed and Mr Spicer did not say he had a contract to
supply arms. He asked a question about a third party supplying
arms and was told he could not do that and was told that would
be illegal. He asked a question about himself supplying night
vision equipment and was told to apply to the DTI for a licence.
He did not say he had a contract to do it. I presumed if that
was something he was going to do he would indeed apply to the
DTI for a licence. No application was ever received. He did not
say at the meeting of 19 January that he had a contract to supply
arms.
| 
