180. Thank you. Chairman,
Sir John has now answered my question. So the briefing which was
provided for Lady Symons was not passed on to Mr Lloyd. Can I
ask a further question? When, on March 17th, a further Minister
of State, Doug Henderson, whose role in this I am not quite clear
about, replied to my colleague, Menzies Campbell in a written
answer about discussions between Mr Penfold and Sandline, where
he disingenuously said that it talked about the security situation
in relation to British nationals and interests, was he advised
that there was a further sub-text to that written reply, that
there was a prospect of an investigation into the activities of
Sandline?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know the answer to that
question, but I do resent the implication of disingenuousness.
Until we know what contact did take place with Sandline, until
we have an independent investigation, I think it is not fair to
say "disingenuous", which implies that Mr Henderson
was not telling the truth. If he says the discussion was about
the safety of British subjects, I would be disposed to believe
that was probably the case.
181. I am sure that is what he was advised
by officials within the Department. All I am simply trying to
ascertain, which should not need a judicial inquiry or public
inquiry to ascertain, is what notes were given by your Department
to Ministers? That surely should be a matter of record and it
should be something you should very simply be able to answer this
Committee on.
(Sir John Kerr) And it will be a matter of record,
there is absolutely no doubt about that. But I revert to the point
about natural justice. Sir Thomas Legg is now seeing all the evidence,
Sir Thomas Legg is conducting interviews with all the potential
witnesses, including all the officials concerned inside the Foreign
Office.
Sir John Stanley
182. On a point of order, Chairman, could
I just give Sir John the opportunity to correct an important piece
of evidence which he has just given? In answer to an earlier question
as to the reasons for the different briefings given to Baroness
Symons and Mr Lloyd, Sir John, you sought to explain that by saying
that Lord Avebury's debate was much more narrowly based and was
related to the Sandline allegations. I have in front of me the
House of Lords' Hansard of 10th March and I quote from Column
99. The question which Lord Avebury put was, to ask Her Majesty's
Government, "What steps they are taking to help restore lasting
peace in Sierra Leone." The Adjournment Debate which Mr Lloyd
answered the following day, obviously was on the technical motion,
"That this House do now adjourn", but the opening of
that debate, initiated by Mr Simon Hughes, was, "I am grateful
for Madam Speaker's choice of tonight's subject on the Adjournment,
which is the situation in Sierra Leone." I put it to you,
Sir John, that the terms of the two debates were to all intents
and purposes identical and therefore you may wish to correct the
answer you gave earlier suggesting that the terms of the House
of Lords' debate were more narrowly based and that this explains
the reason for the different briefing of the two Ministers.
(Sir John Kerr) If I referred to the terms of
the debate—and I do not think I did but if I did—what
I meant to say was that Lord Avebury's interests were clearly
narrowly defined. Lord Avebury's interests had been made clear
to the Department in advance, not least in his letter to the head
of the Africa Department. Lord Avebury was interested in the allegations
about President Kabbah, Mr Saxena and Sandline and he had drawn
them to the attention of the Department. It was hardly unreasonable,
indeed clearly right, that the Department should respond to his
known interest in the briefing of the Minister.
Sir Peter Emery
183. Might I, Sir John, perhaps remind you
that in the debate in the House of Lords conducted by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary, Baroness Symons, there was specific reference
towards the end of the debate by Lord Avebury—not in the
opening but in the conclusion—that the country had been
"mortgaged in an illegal arms transaction in which a British
company, Sandline International, was involved." That is the
question. Are you saying that when that highly contentious matter
was brought before the House of Lords the Foreign Office did not
think that was important enough to brief the Minister of State
on when he was debating the same matter two days later?
(Sir John Kerr) No, I am not saying that, Mr Chairman.
I am not making any accusation against anybody, I am saying that
Sir Thomas Legg's report will establish the facts.
184. I am sorry, Sir John, are you therefore
saying that Sir Thomas Legg is more important than this Committee
and the High Court of Parliament? Is that what you are alleging?
(Sir John Kerr) Of course, I am not saying that.
185. Then will you please answer our questions,
because that is what we are here to do. The question is, how is
it possible that in fact after these allegations were put forward
in the House of Lords' debate—indeed, I would have thought
the very debate itself would have been in the Minister's brief—that
was not referred to the Minister?
(Sir John Kerr) Mr Chairman, the issue of who
in the Department wrote what papers and to which Minister will
all become clear; it will all emerge in Sir Thomas Legg's report.
Mr Mackinlay
186. Do Ministers get each other's briefs
in their boxes?
(Sir John Kerr) It is the normal form for a brief
sent to a Minister, say, a brief sent to the Secretary of State,
to be copied to the Minister of State with particular responsibilities
for——
Chairman
187. And Mr Lloyd has responsibilities for
Africa.
(Sir John Kerr) Mr Lloyd has responsibilities
for Africa.
Mr Mackinlay
188. That begs the question, would Baroness
Symons' brief have been sent, should it have been sent, (a) and
(b) there, to Minister of State Lloyd?
(Sir John Kerr) It should have done. The inquiry
will establish whether it did. But I should add, and this is in
a way the critical point for staff, it is quite important to distinguish
between two categories of paper. There is the formal paper, formally
sent, addressed to a Minister and, although there is a welter
of paper inside the Foreign Office, such paper will be seen by
the Minister unless it is clearly overtaken, wrong, whatever.
That is the private secretary's job. There is also paper sent
for information, side-copied to a range of people. It is important
as a general rule that the top copy, substantive paper, should
be self-contained. It is an error to assume knowledge of side-copy
paper. I am making a number of general generic points here, Mr
Mackinlay. I am trying to help.
Sir Peter Emery
189. Sir John, are you suggesting that on
debates on Sierra Leone within two days of each other that the
Department would have produced two different briefings?
(Sir John Kerr) Absolutely, I should certainly
hope so. The briefing in each case would be targeted on the issues
likely to arise in the debate. We do not have a sort of word processor
on which we roll off stock briefs for any old Minister who has
a debate in the House of Commons, we take the House of Commons
seriously. Of course there would be a real brief made for the
first time.
190. Would that brief not in fact advance
with that in it, the debate which had taken place in the House
of Lords, in another place, just two days before?
(Sir John Kerr) Possibly. I do not know the answer
to that.
191. Would you not expect as a matter of
efficiency then that it ought to?
(Sir John Kerr) Whether it would be for the Department
or whether it would be for the private secretary——
192. I am sorry, would this not be a question
of efficiency that it ought to be?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes indeed.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank
you.
Mrs Bottomley
193. I also am very sorry that I was not
here when the Permanent Under-Secretary gave evidence previously.
My question is simple and for clarification. All I think Sir John
has said is that this matter was not in Tony Lloyd's brief on
12 March. He has not said that Tony Lloyd received no briefing
on this question.
(Sir John Kerr) No. My letter corrects my evidence
last time. I have given a generic answer to Mr Mackinlay's question.
Mrs Bottomley: I think
Mr Mackinlay's question revealed a great deal more about how in
practice the briefing works because Sir John does not only communicate
with Ministers on the basis that they are being briefed for debates,
that is one activity, but actually informing Ministers of various
matters is perhaps more to the mainstream. I think later, Chairman,
we are going to come back on this vexed question of whether or
not it is common practice amongst Foreign Office Ministers to
say they were no longer going to initial or tick papers.
Chairman: I am coming
back to Mr Godman.
Mr Godman
194. I am very keen to cross-examine you
on the finding of the Legg report, Sir John, but I have a couple
of questions on the issue of briefing Ministers. We are here talking
about a gap of just 48 hours. You mentioned—I am trying
to listen intently—documentary briefing, that papers are
placed in front of the Minister, what about oral briefings?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not think I did mention documentary.
There certainly are oral briefings as well, you are quite right.
195. May I continue. Presumably on the basis
of what Sir Peter Emery asked you, we have a debate in the House
of Lords, the Minister is Baroness Symons, in addition to the
documents given to the Minister he must surely—I am talking
about Minister Lloyd—have been briefed orally by the official
concerned on what had transpired in that debate?
(Sir John Kerr) He would certainly have been orally
briefed on Sierra Leone, the situation on Sierra Leone.
196. No, on the debate.
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know the answer to that,
I am not sure.
197. May I ask how many officials, and again
I do not want to infringe their rights as employees, how many
officials are we talking about in terms of briefing the Minister
in relation to the events in the country itself and the debate
which took place just 48 hours earlier? How many officials are
we talking about?
(Sir John Kerr) You mean those who wrote briefs,
those who might have talked to the Minister, those who normally
talk to the Minister?
198. Those who talk to the Minister and
those who would alert him to matters that arose in that earlier
debate?
(Sir John Kerr) No more than three or four.
199. A very small team. That was done, he
was given a documentary brief and he was provided with this oral
briefing?
(Sir John Kerr) He was given an oral briefing.
What happened in that oral briefing I do not know.
