Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1600
- 1619)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
MS ANN
GRANT and MR
CRAIG MURRAY
1600. But you had some evidence, whatever
you made of it, on the 2nd February?
(Ms Grant) Yes.
1601. And the first date on which anybody
told any Minister was when?
(Ms Grant) Of my concerns, again as I have said
not as clearly as I might, I suppose there was reference to the
allegations on the 6th March in a press release which was copied
to Ministers' offices, but in my conversation with Mr Lloyd on
the 10th March it was also included.
1602. So something as potentially serious
as a High Commissioner being involved in a criminal conspiracy
is allowed to take at least a month to reach the ears of a Minister?
Is that the normal procedure?
(Ms Grant) As I have explained, we referred the
allegations to Customs & Excise and we did not at that stage
refer it to Ministers because we did not have evidence or the
launching of an investigation.
1603. Can I go back to the other matter
which concerns me. The message I am getting is that, "We,
in the Department, did not know certain things, but other people
said we did". You said earlier on that the meeting of the
23rd December was something you had no information about for quite
a long time, it turns out now, because of a missing letter. Could
you tell the Committee what is the procedure when a letter is
received in the FCO?
(Ms Grant) When a letter is received it would
be received in the registry by the registry clerk who would—two
ways—if it was addressed to me personally it might have
gone to my PA if it was handwritten and opened by her or it would
be put to me closed because it looked as if it was a personal
letter. Otherwise the vast bulk of the mail that comes to what
was my Department would go to the registry concerned and they
would open it and be responsible for its distribution.
1604. Is every letter received at the FCO
listed?
(Ms Grant) Every letter, no, but certainly any
letter going to a head of department would be logged.
1605. But not every letter?
(Ms Grant) I think that is right, not every letter.
For example, if we have a big mailing a campaign or there are
various——obviously there is a lot of junk mail which
we receive at our offices as well.
1606. Are you prepared to say that that
letter was never received in the FCO?
(Ms Grant) As far as I am aware that letter was
never received in the FCO.
1607. Do you accept Mr Penfold's version
of events that he actually wrote it and posted it?
(Ms Grant) All I can say is that I never received
it.
1608. But you are happy to accept Mr Penfold's
version of events that it was written and posted?
(Ms Grant) I see no way of proving or disproving
that.
1609. Mr Murray, you have said much about
the meeting of 19 January. Could you just remind me who was present
at that meeting.
(Mr Murray) Myself and Tim Andrews, head of the
section, and Mr Spicer.
1610. And nobody else?
(Mr Murray) And nobody else.
1611. Given your concern about the person
you were meeting would it not be normal practice to have somebody
to take notes of that meeting?
(Mr Murray) The normal practice is that the junior
official among the Foreign Office officials takes a note of the
meeting and that was part of my intention in asking Mr Andrews
to join me at the meeting. I did not normally have anyone at a
meeting if I had a caller. I asked Mr Andrews to join me because
I felt given who Mr Spicer was it might be a good thing to have
a witness and, secondly, that he could take a note of the meeting.
1612. Were notes taken during the meeting?
(Mr Murray) I do not recall Tim writing during
the meeting. He was taking part and discussing. I do not recall
him taking any notes.
1613. If his purpose was to be there and
hear what was said and make a note of the meeting, does it not
strike you as odd that no notes were made?
(Mr Murray) Quite probably he decided to do it
from memory. He had papers with him. I could not swear that he
was not jotting down occasional key points but I did not see him
or note him doing that.
1614. Have the files been checked to see
if there are any notes made at the time?
(Mr Murray) Tim has said he did not make notes
at the time.
1615. How long after the meeting was the
minute produced?
(Mr Murray) The same day.
1616. How much later that same day?
(Mr Murray) I would guess two or three hours.
1617. You said earlier on that during that
meeting the only reference to a contract was to the prospect of
a contract.
(Mr Murray) Yes.
1618. And that therefore you did not know
that a contract existed during that meeting?
(Mr Murray) Yes.
1619. Could I then take you 6.20 of the
Legg Report where Legg records that on 5 January Mr Spicer rang
Mr Everard and told him that he had signed an agreement with President
Kabbah to give support worth 10 million US dollars. That is in
the Legg Report as what took place on 5 January. In the Legg Report
it also says that Mr Everard sent his note of the conversation
to Mr Andrews and Ms Grant. On what date was that note sent to
those people?
(Mr Murray) I believe on the same day.
| 
