Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1760
- 1768)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
MS ANN
GRANT and MR
CRAIG MURRAY
1760. Sir Thomas Legg has good grounds for
saying this. He takes the very clear view here from his own independent,
hugely informed position that there were these sensitivities which
were responsible for Ministers not disclosing publicly, including
to this House of Commons, that the arms embargo applied to all
parties and he uses the word "partly" quite deliberately.
I am asking you are you aware why he used the word "partly"
and what were the other sensitivities which explain the ministerial
decision and the Foreign Office decision not to publish full policy?
(Ms Grant) I am not aware of what the other sensitivities
might have been. As I say, my explanation was rather different.
Sir John Stanley: I
trust Sir John Kerr will be reading this transcript and doing
a lot of refreshing of his memory on this particular point before
we see him next week.
Chairman: That is
what is called a distant early warning I think. Mr Illsley?
Mr Illsley
1761. Do you find it strange that Mr Penfold
never mentioned his letter when he came into the Foreign Office
on two occasions on 29 January and 30 January?
(Ms Grant) With hindsight. Obviously I did not
think about the letter so I do not know if it was strange for
him not to mention it at the time. I do given the importance of
what it contained.
1762. Do you think it exists or existed?
(Ms Grant) All I can say is that I did not receive
it in the Foreign Office. That is all I can say about that letter.
Ms Abbott
1763. Just a very brief point. The Legg
Inquiry reveals that the first Minister to know about the Sandline
investigation was Dawn Primarolo. The Legg inquiry states it like
this: that Customs normally notified their Minister of investigations
which had the potential for a high media or Parliamentary profile
and it goes on to say that your briefing was inadequate. By contrast,
the minutes of Miss Primarolo were clear and specific. Can you
explain why poor old Customs and Excise were able to grasp that
there were political and parliamentary implications which entirely
escaped the crack core of the Foreign Office?
(Ms Grant) As I say, I do think we were aware
of the political implications. What we were trying to do was to
get a better handle on what the facts were before briefing the
Ministers. I have said I regret that the Sandline allegations
were not covered better in the briefing but the briefing was designed
for another purpose.
Chairman
1764. Two very final questions. Ms Grant,
we know that the resident clerk telephoned someone in your Department
over the weekend of the 28-29 February in connection with the
report received from Major Hicks about the delivery of 35 tonnes
of arms and equipment—someone in your Department. Can you
offer any explanation as to who that person might be?
(Ms Grant) We cannot. Both Craig and I have asked
subsequently and we cannot find anyone who remembers that telephone
call.
Chairman: Again confusion,
the resident clerk telephoned someone in your Department and no
one accepts that they received that telephone call.
Dr Godman: It must
be logged.
Sir John Stanley
1765. Chairman, if you read on the resident
clerk believes it was Mr Murray whom he telephoned as is stated
in the Legg Report.
(Mr Murray) As is also stated in the Legg Report,
I have no doubt at all that I never had any discussion with the
resident clerk, with any resident clerk which mentioned arms,
Sandline or executive outcomes or Mr Spicer. None of those subjects
ever came up with any discussion I had with the resident clerk.
It was not at all unusual for the resident clerk to call me at
the weekend. It used to happen most weekends and sometimes several
times a weekend. I certainly cannot recall a conversation in which
any of those things were mentioned. I would add (which is not
in the Legg Report and has not been put to me before) that I am
quite certain that I have never ever asked a resident clerk to
destroy a document. My standard response to the resident clerk
on 95 per cent of the occasions he called me was that whatever
document it was he was calling about, it could wait until Monday
morning. That was always my preferred response if I could possibly
argue that. I might well say that but I have never ever said to
a resident clerk, "We don't need to see that, you can destroy
it." It is not a response I would ever give and not the way
we handle things in the Department. I am extremely puzzled by
this episode.
Chairman
1766. So are we. 5.42, Ms Grant, you recall
that at the beginning of April Mr Spicer had had his home searched
by Customs, and he telephoned Mr Penfold who advised him to contact
Mr Murray. Mr Penfold then sent a telegram on these lines: "I
am concerned at the way this is being handled in London and I
would like to be reassured that I have the confidence and the
full backing of the office on what is becoming a very messy affair."
Given the history of relations with Mr Penfold, were you surprised
to receive such a call for full backing?
(Ms Grant) The telegram?
1767. Yes.
(Ms Grant) In fact this was the day when the new
arrangements which I have described to Mr Mackinlay kicked in
and anything to do with Sandline, communications with Mr Penfold
and anything else relevant was handed over to another official
not in the line of command from me.
1768. Can you offer any explanation as to
why he should have expected your full confidence?
(Ms Grant) He was, I think, concerned about the
implications of the Customs and Excise inquiry for us all.
Chairman: Thank you.
We have kept you both in the field for a very long day. We are
most grateful and you deserve a good cup of tea and a rest.
| 
