1880. Anyway, in that case
let us start again. How much paperwork do you receive each week?
(Sir John Kerr) I have not been counting. I think
we talked telegrams.
1881. Yes, telegrams?
(Sir John Kerr) I read all the weekend telegrams
and a selection by my private secretary of telegrams produced
during the week.
1882. So in that case a large amount of
information does come your way?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, that is right.
1883. Would you expect that to have included
the Toronto newspaper in August 1997? Is that something, if you
read so much, that would be included?
(Sir John Kerr) It might have been. I was in Washington
as Ambassador, of course. It might have done but it did not because
I was in Washington as Ambassador.
1884. I do not think it matters where you
were because subsequently that piece of information becomes highly
relevant as to when you could have been alerted. Would you expect,
in the course of all this paperwork that comes your way, to be
told about an allegation of illegal activity by a High Commissioner?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, sir.
1885. And were you?
(Sir John Kerr) I was told on 30 March.
1886. Which was not when the allegation
first came in?
(Sir John Kerr) No, I was told on 30 March/2 April
in that minute we have been talking about.
1887. But that information became available
at the beginning of February?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes.
1888. So it was not sent to you for some
while despite the amount of paperwork that is sent to you?
(Sir John Kerr) That is correct, yes.
1889. Would you expect to be told about
a breach of an Order in Council, because you have made so much
of how important they are?
(Sir John Kerr) Certainly.
1890. And how quickly were you told of this
breach of an Order in Council?
(Sir John Kerr) The answer is the same.
1891. The answer is the same, a long time.
You have already been asked about the items in the Legg report
which are 6.62 and you referred back to 6.64 in your justification
for saying that it was not something we should be concerned about.
In fact, when Mr Rowlands asked you about this particular minute
and was it accurate, you rather gave the impression that because
people were distracted by other matters it was reasonable to put
things in the way that they were, that the supply of arms was
not involved, and yet in reply to Sir John Stanley you said you
had been misled. Can we, for the record, be clear as to whether
it was a matter of simple distraction or whether you accurately
described it as your being misled?
(Sir John Kerr) Sorry, could you repeat the question?
1892. When Mr Rowlands asked you about the
item in the Legg report, 6.62, where the statement is made that
arms are not involved, in reply to Mr Rowlands you referred to
Legg's justification at 6.64 and portrayed it as a matter of no
great consequence because people concerned were distracted by
others matters, and you said it was one of those things (if I
can paraphrase you), and yet when Sir John asked you about the
very self-same thing you admitted that you believed you had been
misled. Both replies, to Mr Rowlands and Sir John, cannot be correct.
Which is correct?
(Sir John Kerr) Sorry, Mr Chairman, could we look
at 6.63?
1893. I am going to come on to that. You
were being asked about 6.62 not about 6.63.
(Sir John Kerr) The view that Sir Thomas Legg
appears to have reached is that the crucial sentence in the Murray
minute, from the point of view of its effect on the reader, was,
Murray wrote: "We were not aware of any shipment of arms."
1894. That is 6.62?
(Sir John Kerr) 6.62. I am quite sure that Mr
Murray's intention was not to mislead me. I misread his minute
or was misled by his minute. I clearly concluded from the sentence,
"We were not aware of any shipment of arms," that we
were not aware of any contract for arms. I had no sense of the
iceberg. I saw only the tip and it looked to me rather reassuring.
If there is a conflict between what I said to Sir John and what
I said to Mr Rowlands—I am sorry, I am afraid it has gone
out of my head again. Could you repeat and I will try and clarify.
Mr Wilshire: I do
not think we are going to get much further. The record will now
stand that the answer to one was "distracted"; the answer
to the same question asked again was, "I was misled,"
and I cannot say it more plainly than that.
Sir John Stanley: Chairman,
could I possibly try and assist here. I wonder whether the Permanent
Secretary would like to read out the first paragraph of Mr Murray's
minute of 30 March because I believe that does provide an unequivocal
answer to Mr Wilshire's question.
Chairman
1895. Do you have that paragraph to hand?
(Sir John Kerr) I have, yes.
1896. Would you read it out for the benefit
of Mr Wilshire and the Committee?
(Sir John Kerr) It says: "As expected, Mr
Cedric Andrew of Customs and Excise phoned me today." This
is dated 30 March, a minute to Grant and Dales, copied to Lloyd
and Sheinwald. "In visiting Sandline's premises on Friday,
C&E had obtained prima facie evidence of a crime, shipping
arms to Sierra Leone last month in breach of the UN embargo. Sandline
had said they were acting with the full knowledge of HMG and given
my telephone number." That is the first paragraph, Sir John.
Mr Wilshire
1897. I think that rather makes the point.
Could I move on to 6.63, Sir John, as you wish to do so. It would
appear to be that this is a case of something that was sent to
you that you did not read, is that right?
(Sir John Kerr) Sorry, what are we talking about?
1898. 6.63, the reference to the letter
of 2 April?
(Sir John Kerr) No, that was not sent to me. I
did not see that.
1899. Well, let us turn to what appears
in the Legg report about it?
(Sir John Kerr) "John Kerr does not recall
having seen that letter. Neither does his private secretary."
