Examination of witness (Questions 120
- 143)
THURSDAY 14 MAY 1998
SIR JOHN
KERR, KCMG
120. What what was the purpose of that?
(Sir John Kerr) The Sandline man came in. There
had been a change. Mr Everard had left and Mr Murray had taken
over and I think that was Spicer's only time in the Foreign Office
in 1998, 1997, 1996. I think he had a meeting with the Foreign
Office in 1995. He came in and was seen because he was a man who
is supposed to know about situations in Sierra Leone.
121. In the period we are talking about,
basically the last 12 months, what has been the situation as regards
locally engaged staff in our High Commission in Sierra Leone?
To what extent would we have had locally engaged staff there?
(Sir John Kerr) I am very glad you asked the question
because I would like to pay tribute to the locally engaged staff
who stayed there guarding the building at some risk to themselves.
We were known to be very strong supporters of President Kabbah.
Our locally engaged staff gallantly stayed there.
122. To what sort of extent and level?
(Sir John Kerr) Very low level. There was no political
work being done. We did not recognise the government. We would
not have wanted to do political work with them. The diplomatic
staff had all gone. What was left there were caretakers.
Mr Rowlands
123. So the communications system would
have been shut down?
(Sir John Kerr) The communications system had
been removed.
Mr Mackinlay
124. The representation of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office at the Restricted Enforcement Unit meeting,
would that have been attended by the people in the Central Africa
department?
(Sir John Kerr) It was attended by the non-proliferation
department people, but they told Customs and Excise who in the
department was handling Lord Avebury's letter. There was not a
left-hand/right-hand there at all.
125. The people who are the architects of
the brief to Minister Lloyd for the debate on the 12th March are
not the same people who would attend——
(Sir John Kerr) Correct.
Mr Mackinlay: Thank
you.
Mr Ross
126. Sir John, can I just say to you that
I was not surprised to hear you admitting that you were not aware
of the Restricted Enforcement Unit's name. It is not particularly
something that is new. When I was on the Employment Select Committee
we suddenly discovered by sheer chance that there was a unit that
was supposed to meet whenever a massive redundancy took place
and it had never met, and the Secretary of State did not even
know it existed. So you should not feel bad about that. This is
something that seems to happen quite a lot. If people doubt that
fact, it is in the record. It was supposed to meet and it had
never met until we found out about it and then it started meeting
fairly regularly. As you will recall, under the last lot there
were regular redundancies. So I am not surprised that you are
not aware of this. Is it fair to say that in the Adjournment Debate
when Tony Lloyd referred to the Observer article he was
doing exactly what he knew to be the truth, which was he was denying
any possible meeting which involved Mr Penfold, Sandline and President
Kabbah?
(Sir John Kerr) Thank you, Mr Ross, that is absolutely
correct.
127. There is nothing that Tony Lloyd says
by reference to the Observer article that in any way contradicts
the facts as they are known?
(Sir John Kerr) I agree.
128. Is it not also the case that Mr Spicer
is like a number of individuals who go around the world claiming
to have an inside track into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
and yet their intention in phoning up the Foreign Office is simply
to reinforce when they go to their potential client saying, "Yesterday
I spoke to the Foreign Office", or, "Tomorrow I intend
speaking to the Foreign Office", or, "I know so and
so in the Foreign Office"? There is a whole host of these
individuals floating around.
(Sir John Kerr) Again, I agree, Mr Ross, yet one
has to see them if one thinks there may be something that they
have to say which is relevant to forming a picture of what is
going on in the country.
129. I know from my own experience, particularly
of the Middle East, that there is a whole series of individuals
who claim access to various organisations which are wholly tenuous,
but the fact that they can pick up a phone and speak to someone—and
anyone can do it—adds to their potential selling power.
(Sir John Kerr) I agree.
130. As a Select Committee we have to ensure
that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ministers and officials
are doing their job. What we have got here is an oily lawyer trying
to throw as much rubbish out as he possibly can in order to try
and make a better case for his clients if their unfortunate circumstances
come to court.
(Sir John Kerr) I am not sure that I am allowed
to agree on adjectives, but I actually find it really rather worrying
that so much of the press has been prepared to buy a slur on hard-working
people in the Foreign Office. Just because the legal company has
to try and do its job on behalf of its client, it really is not
wise to accept everything that it says when it amounts to a slur
on hard-working people in the Foreign Office, that is right. I
am very grateful for what you have said, Mr Ross.
131. Would you not expect someone with legal
training to be aware of that and to be careful of the way in which
they use this alleged factual information that is thrown around
when they speak in the House of Commons?
(Sir John Kerr) I think you are tempting me into
difficult territory here. I have to run through a list of barristers
in my mind's eye and I have gone far enough. I am not going to
say anything.
132. Having listened to the Secretary of
State on two occasions in the House, are you absolutely confident
that what the Secretary of State has been saying to us will stand
up at the end of both investigations?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, I am absolutely 101 per cent
confident. I would just like to say that as Permanent Under-Secretary
I am shocked at the allegations that this man might have been
in any way at fault in this case because he is not.
Mr Rowlands
133. Which man are we talking about?
(Sir John Kerr) The Foreign Secretary.
Chairman
134. It was nothing to do with Sandline.
(Sir John Kerr) My answer to Mr Ross's question
is 101 per cent certain. I first met the Foreign Secretary on
serious business when he came out to Washington and I had to work
extremely hard through several late evenings with him, being grilled
by him not just about America and trans-Atlantic policy but also
about the Middle East, about Cyprus, at great length about European
policy. It was extremely hard-working stuff. I realised then,
although I did not know I was going to be Permanent Under-Secretary
then, that this was a man who actually gets very very deep into
a brief. So I think the slur on him is quite unfair.
Sir Peter Emery
135. Can you tell me of any Permanent Under-Secretary
of the FCO who has ever run down his Foreign Secretary while he
was in office?
(Sir John Kerr) Sir Robert Vansittart.
Sir Peter Emery: That
is a little while ago.
Chairman
136. Just one final point that may be of
some help. The legal advice that you have had on the UN Security
Council resolution 1132, which, as you said, covers arms supply
either by those who supported the illegal government or the internationally
recognised government, what is the ambit of that restriction?
Does it go beyond arms to cover in any way intelligence or technical
assistance or humanitarian assistance?
(Sir John Kerr) There is a long list of commodities
listed in the Schedules, Chairman.
137. Is there any ban on supplying intelligence
to President Kabbah and his forces?
(Sir John Kerr) No. I ought to consult my lawyer
again, but on the face of my reading of the Order in Council,
no.
138. Is there any ban on supplying non-arms
technical assistance to the legitimate President?
(Sir John Kerr) Provided it does not involve any
of the commodities listed in the Schedules, certainly not.
Chairman: I am obliged.
Mr Wilshire
139. How about repairing helicopters, could
that be covered under the Schedule?
(Sir John Kerr) I think the helicopter in question
was the ECOMOG helicopter. I think it is absolutely right that
the ECOMOG helicopter which was being used for humanitarian operations
should have been repaired. That seems to me absolutely nothing
to do with Sandline.
140. So the allegations that it was owned
and operated by Sandline are wrong?
(Sir John Kerr) The allegation is about an arms
supply which, if it happened, took place towards the end of February.
That is the allegation.
141. But the helicopter was not owned and
operated by Sandline?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know the answer to that
question, but it was the ECOMOG helicopter.
142. Could you find the answer and let us
have it?
(Sir John Kerr) Okay.
Chairman
143. The Committee, Sir John, invited you
to come before us to deal with the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office Report 1998, The Government's Expenditure Plans. I fear
that our questions have not borne directly on that. We may invite
you back in respect of that matter and it may be now, of course,
we shall have to consider what further stages, if any, we need
to take in respect of Sierra Leone. You have been helpful and
we thank you very much indeed for your evidence.
(Sir John Kerr) Thank you, Chairman.
| 
