Examination of witness (Questions 20 -
39)
THURSDAY 14 MAY 1998
SIR JOHN
KERR, KCMG
Chairman
20. Are you saying that there was no indication
from the post in Conakry, from the High Commissioner then in Conakry,
in December that there was a danger that this British firm might
supply arms?
(Sir John Kerr) Chairman, first, the High Commissioner
was neither in Freetown nor in Conakry in January. He came back
at some stage in December from Conakry where he had been operating
out of an hotel room and was on leave in this country and then
in North America, I am not sure where.
21. Was there any indication by whatever
means from our High Commissioner in Sierra Leone in December or
January to the Foreign Office expressing fears about the possible
supply of arms?
(Sir John Kerr) I am advised, and I need to speak
with caution given the ongoing Customs and Excise investigation
as you acknowledged, Chairman, in your introduction, that no such
report was received in the Foreign Office in December.
22. And after the Lord Avebury letter, the
discussion you mentioned in February, what was the highest level
of the Foreign Office at which that letter from Lord Avebury and
its implications was discussed?
(Sir John Kerr) I cannot tell you, Chairman, I
do not know.
23. Would that not be on the face of minutes?
(Sir John Kerr) Not really. I am sorry, I think
I need to go back to the perspective. The working levels in the
Foreign Office do see an awful lot, and ourselves create a lot,
of suggestions of sanctions busting. When our posts report something
that is suspicious and might point to sanctions busting we would
expect that to be drawn to the attention of the implementing authority
under whichever legislation it is, in this case Customs and Excise.
When we see it in the press, when it is drawn to our attention
by a Member of this House, a Member of the other place, in this
case Lord Avebury, that action would take place quite automatically.
I repeat at this committee, of whose existence I was not aware
until recently—clearly there had to be some such committee
but that it was called the Restricted Enforcement Unit I frankly
did not know—there were 60 new items discussed, 38 previous
items discussed again, 98 in this meeting on the 18th, 31 action
points arising, three for Customs and two visits to companies.
24. You are telling the Committee in the
light of all you know now that particular allegation from Lord
Avebury with all we know about President Kabbah at the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh and so forth, you are
not surprised that it did not rise beyond that committee?
(Sir John Kerr) No, I am not, Chairman. I think
the thing was properly handled.
Sir John Stanley
25. Permanent Secretary, could you just
clarify the answer which you gave to the Chairman a moment ago.
Are you saying to this Committee that contrary to all reports
that have appeared in the press, you are stating quite clearly
that at no time did the British High Commission in Sierra Leone
issue warnings to your Department that Sandline might be contemplating
a breach of the embargo?
(Sir John Kerr) I mentioned a moment ago, and
I am sure you recognise, Sir John, I need to be quite careful
about what I say since these matters are clearly being examined
by the Customs and Excise investigators now because they clearly
would be germane to the investigation of Sandline and their counter-allegation
against the Foreign Office. I repeat, it is my understanding,
I am advised, that no such report from the High Commissioner was
received.
Sir John Stanley: Would
you, after the conclusion of this hearing, go back to your Department's
files because clearly you may need to explore this somewhat further.
Could you provide confirmation as to whether what you have just
said to the Committee is correct or not and if it is needing any
amendments could you promptly provide the Committee with the necessary
amendments. As you know, Permanent Secretary, regardless of whether—
Chairman
26. That was a question, Sir John.
(Sir John Kerr) I had hoped it was not a question.
I did not hear a question mark at the end.
Sir John Stanley
27. There was a degree of uncertainty, as
I heard you replying to that question, Permanent Secretary, as
to whether your Department did receive any warnings. You said
"I am advised" which is not the same as giving an unequivocal
assurance. I am asking you to examine the records between the
posts and your Department, the totality of those, and confirm
to this Committee the advice you have given this Committee that
no warning at any time was received by your Department from the
British High Commission for Sierra Leone indicating that there
might be a possibility of Sandline breaching the embargo. I am
just asking you to confirm that to the Committee when you have
taken any further investigation you need to do.
(Sir John Kerr) Sir John, I hear the question
mark very clearly this time. May I take it that what you would
like me to confirm concerns, and I may not be able to do it, I
shall have to take advice from my lawyers and Customs and Excise,
but if I can do it, if I am allowed to do it, I would like to
do it, the question is before arms were apparently delivered was
the Foreign Office alerted in any way by the High Commission in
Sierra Leone?
Chairman
28. Or from any other source.
(Sir John Kerr) Any other source brings in Lord
Avebury.
Sir John Stanley
29. I am not saying before they were delivered.
(Sir John Kerr) Forgive me, Sir John, that is
quite an important distinction I am trying to make. In our investigation
now into an allegation against us we are bound to have exchanged
messages with our posts. I should like to know whether this is
an historical question: were we warned; did we receive a warning
of the possibility before arms were delivered? That might be an
easier question for me to confirm that the answer I have given,
which I believe is correct, is absolutely correct. If I need to
look into the month of April when the allegation was made against
the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office is bound to be exchanging
telegrams with its post saying "here, hang on, what is all
this?", are you saying that too is covered by your question?
Is your question timeless or is it warning of arms supply before
arms, according to the press, were supplied?
30. The question is timeless but obviously
covered by the obligations you have which you have referred to
not to prejudice the Customs and Excise inquiry. Permanent Secretary,
regardless of whatever warnings were or were not received from
the post, the issue of Sandline and the issue of possible breach
of the embargo was blazed across the front of the Observer
on Sunday 8 March. Can you tell us before your Department made
the reference to Customs and Excise whether they consulted the
officials in the Attorney General's departments or the Attorney
General himself?
(Sir John Kerr) They did not.
31. Thank you. Later on that week, on the
same date that the reference was made by the Foreign Office to
Customs and Excise, also on Tuesday 10 March Baroness Symons,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, as you know, was replying
to a series of questions from Lord Avebury in which she was asked
to investigate reports that appeared in the Observer, The
US News, The World Report and other places that future
diamond resources of the country had been mortgaged in an illegal
arms transaction in which a British company, Sandline International,
was involved. Baroness Symons, replying to that question, said:
"My Lords, I am aware of the newspaper article to which the
noble Lord refers". Permanent Secretary, can you confirm
the fact that the Minister said that indicates that briefing was
provided for Baroness Symons for that debate by officials of your
Department in relation to the Observer article and the
Sandline allegations?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, I can confirm that there
was a briefing provided. Chairman, and Sir John, I need to put
this in perspective again. As I am sure you realise we are well
short here of realising that the company is going to make a counter-allegation
against us, the Foreign Office, the people who initiated the investigation
of it. The allegation against Sandline had been acted on, it was
in the hands of the investigating authority. That had a rather
routine look to it at the time—I am not complaining about
officials not having told me about the action they took in mid-February—therefore
this matter would not have been prominent in the papers being
prepared. Yes, I can confirm that the papers do contain references
to the fact that Sandline are being investigated for possible
sanctions busting.
Sir John Stanley: Thank
you.
Sir Peter Emery
32. The date of those?
(Sir John Kerr) The debate, I think is it the
10th, Sir John?
Sir John Stanley
33. The debate was on 10 March, yes. The
following day, Permanent Secretary, was of course a Prime Minister's
questions day. Can you confirm that No.10 had sought a briefing
for the Prime Minister for Prime Minister's questions on the Observer
article and Sandline for that day's PM's questions?
(Sir John Kerr) I cannot confirm that, I frankly
do not know. My not confirming it does not mean that it did not
happen.
Sir John Stanley: I
quite understand. Could you examine your Department's papers and
could you tell this Committee whether briefing was provided for
Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday 11 March? Could you also
tell the Committee whether, as is the normal practice in Government
Departments, that briefing was put to a Minister in your Department
before going to No.10 and, if so, which Minister cleared the briefing
for No.10?
Chairman
34. Will you confirm as Sir John has asked?
(Sir John Kerr) Absolutely. I do not know the
answer to Sir John's first question, I am happy to find out.
Sir John Stanley
35. The following day, Permanent Secretary,
as you know there was an adjournment debate initiated by Mr Simon
Hughes in the House of Commons on Sierra Leone. As you will know,
in fact, Mr Hughes and indeed other Members participating in that
debate had not referred to the Observer article but the
Minister himself, Mr Lloyd, quite spontaneously and of his own
volition introduced the Observer article and Sandline.
Indeed he said at column 844: "I am slightly surprised that
no-one has referred to it" referring to the Observer
article. Can you also confirm that Mr Lloyd received briefing
from your Department's officials to enable him to respond to Mr
Simon Hughes' debate on 12 March?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, Chairman, I can. Again this
was my perspective point. Prominence, no. It was there. The point
that most concerned officials was that they heard, I think from
the Observer, that the Observer might be going to
write a story about triangular meetings between Mr Penfold, President
Kabbah and a representative of Sandline. They told the Observer,
I think on the Friday, that was not the case. They consulted Mr
Penfold and they established that was not the case. I think Mr
Lloyd's briefing may have contained quite a bit about the allegation
of a triangular meeting, an allegation that did not actually appear
in the Observer article.
36. Thank you. Just a final question I would
like to put to you. This relates to the briefing of the Foreign
Secretary. The Foreign Secretary when he made his reply to the
Private Notice Question on 6 May certainly gave the impression
to me, and perhaps to others, that he was really wholly unsighted
about Sandline until 28 April. Could you tell us what was the
date when the first information about Sandline and your Department's
discussions with Sandline were sent to the private office of the
Foreign Secretary?
(Sir John Kerr) Oh, there is no doubt about it,
it was when the letter from the solicitor's firm, Berwin, arrived
on——
Mr Mackinlay
37. 24 April.
(Sir John Kerr) Thank you. On the 24th. The Foreign
Secretary was then abroad, I think.
38. April.
(Sir John Kerr) April. Perspective, sir. The first
action by Foreign Office officials was absolutely right and it
was absolutely right they should go ahead and do it. It was the
kind of routine matter which should certainly not have been reported
to Ministers. That is what we do in the Foreign Office, we do
not sit on things, we deal with them. The second moment comes
when it comes to the attention of the Foreign Office that the
company is going to make an allegation against us, and indeed
it is already making it. In that case the Director of the Africa
Command correctly reported that to me. That was an allegation
against the Foreign Office, against the Diplomatic Service, so
he drew it to my attention. It was a copy of his report to me
which was for information with Mr Lloyd and which the Foreign
Secretary referred to in his statement on the 6th, papers shown
to Mr Lloyd for information. That is quite correct because an
allegation against the Foreign Office and the Service, that is
an allegation which comes to me. I read the report from the Africa
Director with concern but not huge concern because I was pretty
confident that these guys who work in the Foreign Office would
have got it right and the Director told me they had got it right,
that the counter-allegation against us was not true. I thanked
him and I remained on the bridge keeping an eye on this one. I
was alert to it from then on. I did not actually tell the Foreign
Secretary about it because it is not the sort of daily business—a
company makes an allegation against us, we having passed on an
allegation against it—that I would immediately expect the
Foreign Secretary to be bothered with. It was right that the Minister
of State should be in the picture, it was right that I should
have been put in the picture, and in fact the Deputy Under-Secretaries
to the Office were put in the picture. That is good, that is fine.
The Command had done the right thing. The thing had escalated
out of the Command because it was an allegation against us. I
do not feel that it would have been right to bother the Foreign
Secretary with it. That is not because the Foreign Secretary would
not have wished to see something, probably in retrospect he thinks
I should have sent it on to him, I do not know, but the Foreign
Secretary is meant to be laying down the strategy of foreign policy
and carrying that out. During the UK Presidency of the EU that
is going to be extremely hard work, that is a very, very busy
schedule. Housekeeping matters like this are basically the responsibility
of guys like me. The Foreign Secretary has a massive workload
which is gone through rigorously and efficiently. It would be
quite wrong to create a situation where everybody who wishes to
cough in the Foreign Office has to push a paper at a Minister
and drown Ministers with paper, or when they hear a cough directed
at the Foreign Office.
Mr Rowlands
39. The burden of your case, Sir John, is
that the command structure of the FCO did not require these papers
being pushed up to yourself. Can we try to discover at least what
level they were pushed up to. On page three of the Departmental
Report we have the command structure laid before us. There is
an Africa and Commonwealth Department headed by Mr Dales, and
an African Department (Equatorial) which is where, if the press
reports are right, it was dealt with at desk and official level.
Are you saying that reference to the Customs and Excise, the one
that formally occurred on 10 March on which there had been discussion
beforehand, did not go outside that section of the Office? It
was not reported up above what level?
(Sir John Kerr) The action taken, I now discover
on the 18th, and the reply to Lord Avebury sent on the 26th and
the formal confirmation notice sent to Customs on 10 March, none
of them would have risen above Mr Dales' command. I do not know
but I doubt if they went to him. This is typical daily business.
|
