1960. Does not the Foreign
Office still supply to ministers press cuttings about factors
which affect this country in foreign affairs on a daily or weekly
basis?
(Sir John Kerr) There certainly is a press cuttings
service and, in my experience, ministers read the press even before
they read the press cuttings.
1961. Then is it not even more surprising,
as there were a number of press items about this, that no questions
were asked by ministers?
(Sir John Kerr) Forgive me, I do not know if any
questions were asked by ministers.
1962. Thank you. That is all I wanted to
know. Could I then lastly ask, when you consider this whole incident
in retrospect, your first meeting with us, if one looks at all
the evidence, might well have led us to believe that things were
really not too bad, fairly all right, and we should just wait
for Legg to clear it up. Maybe that is unfair, but that is the
feeling one got from your evidence. Does this now not show how
imperative it is that committees of the House of Commons, who
are responsible for ministries and have this particular responsibility
given to them, should be able to do this unfettered by a department
postponing the inquiries in the work of, in this instance, the
Foreign Affairs Committee, by appointing an internal inquiry of
their own, from people of their own, rather than leave it to the
parliamentarians who are charged with that task?
(Sir John Kerr) A small point first. Robin Ibbs,
I think, used to run ICI, so I do not think he is "one of
our own". Tom Legg was Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's
Department and is a distinguished QC. I argued before, Sir Peter,
in this hearing, that I thought the work of the Committee does
greatly benefit from the work of Tom Legg and Robin Ibbs. I think
their narrative, which pulls no punches, is clear and helpful.
I never would have, and never did, dispute the right of this Committee
of the House of Commons to look into this matter. I did argue
a point about sequencing, which I am of course arguing again today,
that I think Sir Tom Legg's report helps your investigations.
I think the big point to bear in mind too is that it is very difficult
to separate wheat from chaff. I do not think the evidence I gave
you was terrific, I agree with you, Sir Peter, I do not think
it was terrific, I think it was very difficult on 14th May to
separate it out, wheat from chaff. I am not convinced that I myself
really had it all separated out until I studied, before I had
formal interviews with the staff, the Legg Report in considerable
detail. It told me things I did not know. I think that is bound
to be the case. If I may—pushing my luck, you are being
very kind—
1963. I am not meaning to be!
(Sir John Kerr) If I may come back to what Sir
Thomas Legg established, he established that no minister gave
encouragement or approval to the Sandline plan. He discovered
that some officials became aware of the plan. He discovered that
no official other than the High Commissioner in Freetown gave
it any encouragement or approval. I do not think, no matter how
well I had conducted myself on 14th May, I could have persuaded
you of that, and yet I am convinced that is the case and I am
convinced all these three points are correct.
Sir Peter Emery: I
understand and hear what you are saying, but would you not perhaps
point out to other Permanent Secretaries, who might find themselves
thinking of appointing an internal committee rather than having
their own Select Committee look at it, that it is now six months
since we started on this, we were put off and delayed because
of Legg, and I happen to believe that the Foreign Office would
have been very much better to have had this Committee look at
the matter and probably had it cleared up by the end of July,
than have it drag on and drag on and drag on until today and we
still have to issue our report. We may not agree entirely with
what the Legg Report says but I think you should note that doing
what the Foreign Secretary did does not hasten the situation,
it is very much likely to lengthen it.
1964. I want to ask a brief question on
the subject which Sir Peter was following, the briefing of ministers.
Setting aside the failure to alert the Foreign Secretary at an
earlier stage, setting aside the inadequacy of the briefings for
the two parliamentary questions or debates, what I find quite
extraordinary is that Mr Lloyd was allowed to go to Sierra Leone
on 31st March immediately after this matter was receiving major
attention within the department in terms of the customs inquiry
and elsewhere, he was actually going to Sierra Leone as part of
the CMAG, and yet apparently he was not briefed in any way about
Sierra Leone. What sort of briefing before a minister visits a
country leaves him in that totally exposed position? That seems
to me totally unforgivable. What is the process for providing
a briefing for ministers? Does he have a face-to-face briefing
with officials? Does somebody accompany him who tells him on the
plane what he should know about the country? Or is there a written
brief? Legg makes no mention of that in his conclusions and it
surprises me. What are your views about that?
(Sir John Kerr) I think he was equipped with a
whole lot of briefing about Sierra Leone because—
Chairman
1965. That was not the question. Why was
he not told about the arms inquiry in his briefing?
(Sir John Kerr) I am sorry, I thought Mr Heath
said he had no brief on Sierra Leone.
Mr Heath
1966. Obviously he received a brief, I am
trying to discover the nature of the brief and how it could possibly
have omitted the one factor which was actually current on that
date, because it had arisen the day before. How could that happen?
How can a minister be sent on a plane not knowing that his department
was being investigated by a Customs investigation on the subject
of the country to which he was going? If he was not told on the
day, why was not Freetown advised to tell him, because by then
we had communications?
(Sir John Kerr) I cannot answer your question,
Mr Heath. I agree it is a mystery. I agree with you. The Legg
Report says, "His briefing for this visit contained nothing
on Sandline. He was accompanied by Mr Andrews ..." from the
department, "... and his Private Secretary ... [He] met no
one from Sandline. Nor did he have any discussions with Mr Penfold,
or anyone else, on the subject of Sandline while he was in Sierra
Leone."
Chairman
1967. That is Hamlet without the Prince
of Denmark. Surely that is a massive failure of briefing, is it
not?
(Sir John Kerr) I agree.
Sir Peter Emery: I
find it difficult that a conversation about that did not take
place. After all, he had been away with an official and much of
the things that you discuss are on the plane and everything else,
I find that statement very difficult to believe.
Sir John Stanley
1968. Sir John, it would be your experience,
as it is certainly mine, that there are on occasions events when
the press, an individual paper perhaps, is actually more on the
ball than the official machine, and this was one such occasion.
Can you tell us, are the daily Foreign Office press cuttings sent
to your office?
(Sir John Kerr) Certainly.
1969. Can you tell us then why, on Monday
March 9th, with a banner headline over the Observer newspaper
the previous Sunday specifically referring to our High Commissioner,
Mr Penfold, by name, specifically referring to Sandline, a British
company and the involvement of the two, why you did not that day
ask to have to you that evening any information which the department
had? Because if you had, you would have had at least Mr Penfold's
minute of February 2nd and Lord Avebury's letter of February 5th
on March 9th.
(Sir John Kerr) I guess that is true. I cannot
reconstruct what I saw or did not see that day.
1970. When do you recollect first seeing
the Observer article?
(Sir John Kerr) I am afraid I cannot remember
now. When one has seen a whole lot of this material at various
stages, I find it absolutely impossible to work out when was the
first time one saw it.
Dr Godman
1971. I was pleased to hear you say in an
answer to Mr Mackinlay that ministers would never, ever again
be served up dog's dinners vis-a-vis Adjournment Debates,
Parliamentary Questions and the like. May I also say to you that
I found the Legg Report most useful in threading my way through
this sorry affair. I think Legg, in paragraph 1.16, gets to the
heart of the matter. What I ask of you is where Legg in that paragraph
says, "This ignorance arose from repeated, and partly systemic,
failures of communication", that those systemic failures
of communication have now been eradicated?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, I am absolutely clear, Dr
Godman, that the action we have taken will make it impossible
for such ignorance to arise again other than wilfully, and in
this case I am sure it was not wilful.
Dr Godman: May I also
say, in contradistinction to Sir Peter Emery's position, that
I think it was right and proper of the department to set up the
Legg Inquiry. I long argued that we should focus most of our investigation
on the cross-examination of yourself, ministers and others, but
also on the findings of Legg. If I may say to you, I still believe
that your entirely decent and honourable officials were out-witted
by these scheming, sleazy mercenaries. Thank you.
Chairman
1972. Sir John, there are a number of management questions
which I shall address separately to you. We are grateful for the
tribute you have given to the role and the work of the Committee.
You have been at the crease now for three and a quarter hours,
and I think the innings should come to an end. Thank you very
much for your help.
(Sir John Kerr) Thank you, Chairman.
