160. What part in this whole
thinking did the intervention by the Nigerian military play? From
everything Ministers have said this was a most unpalatable and
unwelcome intervention, that the restoration of the legitimate
government of Sierra Leone was going to be carried through by
the Nigerian military. When this scenario arose was there an alternative
scenario to the Nigerians? Did you explore those alternatives?
(Sir John Kerr) We were very concerned at the
presence of Nigerian forces. We would have preferred an ECOMOG
force of wider composition clearly. There is no doubt that as
time went on and it became clear that the situation inside Sierra
Leone was very bad indeed with atrocities being committed by the
usurping so-called "government", the West African pressure
for an intervention by the ECOMOG force on behalf of ECOWAS grew.
We still did not wish to see the government restored by these
means.
Chairman
161. They were not the agents of the United
Nations?
(Sir John Kerr) They were certainly not the agents
of the United Nations, no.
Mr Rowlands
162. When the Nigerian situation arose and
Mr Penfold was in close contact with the President in exile and
the Office was considering all this, and given as you described
in your evidence to us last time the very close relationship we
had with Sierra Leone, you are saying there was no alternative
exploration of means by which you could restore the President
through a wider military arrangement? You said you wanted the
composition force to be wider. Were we actively involved in discussing
the possibility of a cease-fire?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, we were, Chairman. We were
observing discussion of cease-fires. Cease-fire agreements were
reached and not always honoured. We were trying to bring about
an end to the fighting. We wished to see (a) an end to the fighting
and (b) the restoration of President Kabbah.
163. May I briefly turn to the second line
of enquiry that I pursued with you and that was how far the information
came up the chain. I hope we are not going to enter the overlap
territory, I will try to draft my questions in such a way that
it does not. I was taken aback and somewhat surprised, and I stopped
therefore pursuing my line of enquiry when you were before us
last, when you said to us that Mr Lloyd had been briefed, that
it was in his brief although not in a very prominent way, the
whole question of the reference to Customs and Excise.
(Sir John Kerr) Yes.
164. You have subsequently corrected that
evidence in two ways, by the first letter[2]
and then after that further correction. Let us just establish
the fact, it is now clear that the Minister of State was not briefed
on the Customs and Excise reference?
(Sir John Kerr) The briefing pack that the Minister
of State had for his debate on 12 March contained no reference
to a report having been passed to Customs and Excise. I misled
the Committee last time, I apologise, Mr Rowlands. I said that
I thought perhaps it did, I went back and looked at the file and
corrected myself the same day.
165. I accept that. I am going to pursue,
if I may, very briefly the line of questioning I would have pursued
had you put the answer you have now corrected, namely I find it
quite astonishing that such information at this time was not put
up to Ministers. Why was it not?
(Sir John Kerr) I think we are in Legg territory,
Chairman. I am sorry to say so but I think we are.
Mr Mackinlay
166. Could I just come in on Mr Rowland's
point. Your letter clarifying the position after your last appearance
relates to Minister Tony Lloyd but is it not a fact that in the
brief to Minister Baroness Symons there was this given? Am I right?
Am I wrong? Your letter of clarification relates to Lloyd, not
to Symons.
(Sir John Kerr) That is correct. That is the question
I was asked.
167. Yes. I am asking a new one, as it were,
but subsequent to that. Am I right or am I wrong that the Customs
and Excise advice was in the brief to Symons?
(Sir John Kerr) Chairman, I am sorry to do this
but I really do think——
Ms Abbott: No.
Sir Peter Emery
168. No.
(Sir John Kerr) I am well aware of what Sir John
Stanley has said. I really do think it is for the Legg enquiry,
which will look at all these papers——
Chairman
169. Sir John, you have already in oral
evidence and in your letter given an answer in respect of one
Minister and in my judgment Mr Mackinlay's question is wholly
proper. Having given an answer on the one Minister there should
be no problem in principle in giving an answer in respect of the
second Minister.
(Sir John Kerr) When I gave my answer, Chairman,
it was on 14 May and the Legg enquiry was established on 18 May.
As I have told you, Chairman, the Legg enquiry will be completed,
I hope, Sir Thomas Legg hopes, the Foreign Secretary hopes, as
soon as possible. That will undoubtedly establish the fact yes
or no that Mr Mackinlay is pursuing with me.
Mr Heath: We are pursuing
it now.
Sir John Stanley
170. I will have to pursue this point further,
Permanent Secretary, because you are, if I may say with great
respect, taking yourself into very serious country indeed. You
have given formal evidence to this Committee on 14 May. I put
to you this precise question and I quote the transcript of your
evidence: "Permanent Secretary, can you confirm the fact
that the Minister" and I was referring to Baroness Symons,
"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?"
To which you replied: "Yes, I can confirm that there was
a briefing provided." You went on to say: "Yes, I can
confirm that the papers do contain references to the fact that
Sandline are being investigated for possible sanctions busting."
Was your evidence, Sir John, to the Committee on 14 May correct
on this point or incorrect?
(Sir John Kerr) My evidence was correct, Chairman.
I do not wish to change my evidence. My evidence was correct.
But I do not believe, as you, Sir John, know from the reply I
sent to your letter, that it is right for us to go further until
all the aspects have been explored by the independent investigation
and a complete picture can be laid out for the Committee. I replied
to you saying that the papers provided for Baroness Symons' debate
on 10 March will now all be provided for Sir Thomas Legg for his
independent scrutiny and his report will be published. I would
be very happy to pursue the matter, as Mr Godman says, in the
light of Sir Thomas Legg's report. I am very, very uneasy about
pursuing the matter now.
Sir John Stanley: Sir
John, just on this point. You have now, in the formal record of
this Committee, in answer to the question I just put to you provided
confirmation that your evidence as to what was Baroness Symons
briefed on in the debate on 10 March that your formal evidence
last time was correct. Prior to that when I wrote formally to
you asking for confirmation that your evidence was correct, as
a Member of this Committee, you gave me in the letter that you
have just read out what I can only describe frankly as an evasive
non-answer. You have repeated in your evidence in response to
Mr Mackinlay's question a moment ago again a refusal to answer
that question. I must put it to you, Sir John, it is unacceptable
to refuse to answer a question put to you directly related to
your previous evidence session by a Member of the Committee. It
is unacceptable to refuse to answer the same question put to you
by a Member of this Committee. I am glad that you have now finally
given the answer but it is simply not acceptable to give non-answers
and then under pressure finally to give the information that a
Committee seeks. It is not an acceptable way to treat a Select
Committee of the House of Commons.
Mr Godman
171. Could I just say I am grateful to Sir
John for this unequivocal apology for misleading the Committee
at an earlier session. I missed that session. I think right at
that moment I was in a dentist's chair in Glasgow. Would you not
agree that if your original answers had been accurate there might
well have been no need to set up the Legg enquiry? Can I ask a
further question. You said in response to Mr Rowlands that this
remarkable decision to go into exile had ministerial approval.
Was that approval granted before or after the decision of the
High Commissioner to go into exile? In other words, if the approval
was given after High Commissioner Penfold's decision then that
ministerial approval was really a sanction of a decision taken
on the ground. A third question: given by your own acknowledgment
that this was a remarkable decision—you have failed to give
examples of other similar decisions since the war although I thought
there might have been one when the Dalai Llama left Tibet but
let us put that to one side—given the remarkable nature
of this decision should there not have been ministerial monitoring
of these events at the highest level from the moment that approval
was obtained?
(Sir John Kerr) Three points. The answer to Mr
Godman's first question is no, I do not think so. I think the
investigation has been established to find out the facts about
allegations of arms supply by a British company and allegations
that there might have been official connivance in that and to
establish what the facts were. I think that is clearly the right
thing to do. Second, on the———
172. Ministerial approval.
(Sir John Kerr) I know that there was ministerial
approval. As I told Mr Rowlands, I do not know whether it was
suggested to Ministers by the Department or suggested to the Department
by Ministers. Ministerial decisions can take either form. I do
know that Mr Penfold came back on a regular basis to maintain
contact with the Department and with the Minister of State. As
to the circumstances of his withdrawal, he had to get out of Freetown,
we did not recognise the government that was there and, moreover,
Freetown was in chaos with lives at risk. He and his staff played
an important role in the evacuation. He was in fact evacuated
to Conakry, so he was there.
Mr Godman: I am not
questioning for a moment the question of the monitoring by Ministers.
Mr Mackinlay: A point
of order, Chairman. With respect, Norman, forgive me. I interrupted
Ted Rowlands, I am conscious of that. It was on that very narrow
point and I think my colleagues came in on that very narrow point.
We are all going to have our batting order. It was just on that
very narrow point on the question of Symons and Lloyd. My colleague,
Ted Rowlands, was still in batting.
Chairman: You had
not completed. I will go back to Mr Godman after.
Mr Rowlands
173. I would like to explain there is no
desire to embarrass but you can imagine the extraordinary situation
in which we find ourselves. If you had answered the question correctly
on 14 May I would immediately have asked the question I have now
put to you and you would have presumably attempted to answer it.
Now you are saying you cannot answer that question because four
days later the Legg enquiry was set up. May I respectfully suggest
that is not a very tenable position, at least in relation to correcting
your own evidence before us. You can understand the dilemma we
are in. Secondly, you have had every opportunity to correct it.
Sir John and Mr Mackinlay have drawn your attention to other evidence
you submitted in relation to the briefing of Lady Symons. May
we presume, if nothing else, that as you have not corrected that
evidence that evidence stands as valid?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes indeed. I am not sure what
is the nature of my offence. I am being accused of being unhelpful
to the Committee and due to the forensic skills of Sir John Stanley
I have in fact answered the question. Which is my offence? Am
I beating my wife or not?
Mr Rowlands: An obvious
follow-up question is why one Minister was given the briefing
and the Minister of State was not. That is not an unreasonable
question to ask.
Sir Peter Emery
174. At a debate two days later.
(Sir John Kerr) It is a question which Sir Thomas
Legg will undoubtedly answer. I would mention to the Minister
of State why Baroness Symons saw papers was because she was due
to answer a question in the House of Lords from Lord Avebury.
Lord Avebury, as the Committee already knows, played a role in
drawing the Office's attention to the story, the press story,
about President Kabbah and middle men possibly doing a deal with
Sandline. That was to be the subject of Lord Avebury's question
to Baroness Symons. Naturally her briefing did cover that, of
course.
Mr Heath
175. If I may, because I am having the greatest
of difficulty with Sir John's replies here. He suggested earlier
on in the evidence session that he was unhappy that the Committee
may wish to go wider than the four specific areas that you indicated
in your letter of 21 May and we are in one of the specific areas
that was indicated in that letter, the arrangements within the
Department for the briefing of Ministers on developments and Sir
John is being less than forthcoming in a way which I think is
frankly unhelpful to the Committee. He is now saying as I understand
it, and you must please correct me if I have misunderstood you,
that Baroness Symons was given a briefing on the investigation
into Sandline because she was answering a question from Lord Avebury,
her colleague, but the same briefing was not felt appropriate
when the Minister of State, Tony Lloyd, was answering an adjournment
debate on a much wider front, one must assume, from my colleague,
Simon Hughes, on 12 March.
(Sir John Kerr) I am not saying any of that.
176. What are you saying?
(Sir John Kerr) I have answered a factual question
asked by Sir John Stanley and I have confirmed my answer to Mr
Rowlands about the briefing provided to Baroness Symons. I have
said nothing about whether it was thought appropriate or it was
not thought appropriate, who thought it appropriate, to provide
more or less briefing for one or other Minister of State. That
seems to me to be a matter entirely within the remit of Sir Thomas
Legg and his investigation.
177. And within this Committee's remit.
It is a matter of the running of the Department for which you
are responsible and for which we have the responsibility of scrutiny.
(Sir John Kerr) Could I remind you, Mr Heath,
of the Chairman's letter which says that the Legg enquiry will
cover issues specific to the allegations of supply of arms to
Sierra Leone and the Chairman writes to me: "Our own further
enquiries", ie today's session, "will focus instead
on organisational matters inside the Department".
Chairman: Order! Is
not what Mr Heath said precisely organisational? Here are two
Ministers, one in the Commons, one in the Lords, at about the
same time answering matters relating to Sierra Leone which do
not arise frequently in the context, one, of Lord Avebury's question
on arms supplies, the other immediately after the raising of that
question of arms supplies in the Observer newspaper. A
simple question from Mr Heath: why was a similar briefing not
given to both Ministers?
Mr Heath
178. Or was it?
(Sir John Kerr) I hope the simple answer will
emerge—it will emerge—in the report that Sir Thomas
Legg will produce.
Ms Abbott: We would
like it now.
Mr Heath
179. If I may, we are asking a perfectly
simple question which is well within the remit of the letter that
the Chairman sent to you which asked you to reply to us on the
arrangements within the Department for briefing Ministers on developments.
No-one would suggest that my question is anything but that. I
am simply asking whether the evidence you gave last time to the
Committee, which you subsequently corrected, whether I am right
in interpreting that as meaning that Baroness Symons was advised
of the situation with regard to Sandline and that Tony Lloyd two
days later was not. Is that the case?
(Sir John Kerr) The briefing that was given to
Tony Lloyd did indeed mention reports of a possible deal with
President Kabbah but it did not mention arms and it did not mention
that the relevant authorities had been asked to investigate. The
briefing which was given to Lady Symons did mention that the allegation
had been passed to the relevant authorities.
2 
