200. This will come out
in the Legg enquiry?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes.
Mr Wilshire
201. On the specific point of the Baroness
Symons' brief, I want to be absolutely clear what the situation
was. From the House of Lords Hansard, as I understand it, at column
101 where Baroness Symons says: "I am aware of the newspaper
article to which the Noble Lord refers. That article was in several
respects not entirely accurate or at least not on all fours with
the reports which Her Majesty's Government are receiving",
does that indicate correctly to me that a significant amount of
research had been done on that article and that a substantial
briefing had been given to Baroness Symons rather than a cursory
mention?
(Sir John Kerr) What is significant, what is substantial?
The papers will be available in due course. I do not know what
Mr Wilshire would regard as substantial or significant.
202. That reply indicates to me, am I right
in drawing this conclusion, that Baroness Symons had been told
quite clearly about the Sandline allegations and the Foreign Office
officials' response to that?
(Sir John Kerr) Lord Avebury had written to Ann
Grant, the head of the Department, drawing her attention to the
allegation about Sandline. Lord Avebury was asking the question
in the Lords, that was what occasioned the debate, it was Lord
Avebury's debate, he was asking the question. Naturally what he
had said to the Department was drawn to her attention.
203. So that was the content of the brief.
If I heard you correctly you said it should have been sent to
Mr Lloyd. Did I hear you correctly?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes. In answer to Mr Mackinlay,
I did.
204. Did I hear you correctly when you were
asked was it sent, you said that is for the Legg enquiry to tell
us?
(Sir John Kerr) That is correct.
205. Can I then ask you do you know whether
it was sent to Mr Lloyd?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know whether it was sent
to Mr Lloyd.
206. In that case will you go back to the
Department for us and find out and let us know this week?
(Sir John Kerr) No, Chairman, I am sorry. We are
in Legg territory here. I know what papers were sent to private
offices, I have no means of telling you what papers were seen
by Ministers. I gave a generic answer to Mr Mackinlay's question
in which I drew attention to the difference between papers specifically
addressed to a Minister intended for him, like for example his
brief for a debate, and papers side-copied which it would be for
a decision in a private office that is inundated with 600 telegrams
a day, with Whitehall correspondence, with intra-Foreign Office
correspondence, for a private secretary to decide what is to be
done with a particular paper. I also made a general point in answer
to Mr Mackinlay that it is therefore rather important as a matter
of procedure that top copy papers addressed to Ministers should
actually be self-contained. That was the generic answer I gave.
I would be grateful if the Committee would recognise that I have
gone as far as I possibly can.
207. No, Chairman, I do not accept that.
I did not ask a generic question, I asked a specific question.
Will you go back to your Department, will you establish whether
or not that brief was sent and will you let us know this week?
If you cannot answer that, or will not answer that, then I have
to simply put on record that I consider a refusal to answer a
specific question a contempt of Parliament and I will pursue the
matter.
(Sir John Kerr) Mr Lloyd is quite clear, and has
told the House, what he knew and——
Ms Abbott: We are
questioning you.
Chairman
208. Let Sir John finish.
(Sir John Kerr) Mr Lloyd is quite clear. I do
not work in Mr Lloyd's private office. I am not in a position
to tell you what happens to side copied papers copied into Mr
Lloyd's private office. I have no doubt that issues of this kind
will be explored in the Legg report.
Mr Wilshire
209. That is not the question I asked. I
simply asked was it sent? I do not mind whether it was sent as
a top copy, a second copy, a twenty-fifth copy, I simply asked
a straightforward question, was it sent, and the answer I got
was "I do not know if it was sent". I repeat my question:
will you go back to your Department and establish whether a top
copy or any other copy was sent and tell us this week?
(Sir John Kerr) I can tell you straight away,
Mr Wilshire, but it does not answer your concern. I can tell you
straight away that there was a marked side copy.
Chairman
210. Which would have been sent to the office?
(Sir John Kerr) The top copy shows that a side
copy was marked to Mr Lloyd's office.
211. Does that answer your question, Mr
Wilshire?
(Sir John Kerr) I know that Mr Lloyd did not see
it. I cannot tell you whether it was sent to his office and not
seen by him or whether, despite the marking on the paper that
I have seen, it was not sent. So I cannot answer your question,
I am sorry, and there is no way in which I can answer your question.
Mr Wilshire: Would
it not be straightforward to ask his private office whether they
received it?
Ms Abbott
212. They would have a record of that, that
is how private offices work.
(Sir John Kerr) Forgive me, Ms Abbott, but actually
it is important to record the action papers which come to the
Minister, it is very important to record the intelligence papers
which come to the Minister. But the ephemeral papers which come
to them, you cannot record, you simply cannot.
Chairman
213. Are you telling the Committee there
may not be a record of the receipt by Mr Lloyd's private office
of a secondary copy of that paper?
(Sir John Kerr) That is what I am saying.
Mr Wilshire
214. In that case your suggestion to me
that all will be revealed by the Legg Inquiry is nonsense, because
if you cannot establish whether it was sent or not because there
is no record, then he cannot. So the suggestion that we should
wait for that report does not get us anywhere at all.
(Sir John Kerr) That is not quite right. It is
not my job, and I very carefully avoided trying to do the job,
to interrogate witnesses, to have interviews. That is not my job
and it is important that I should not do that because that would
cut across the independent investigation by Sir Thomas Legg, QC.
He is bound to ask the kind of questions you are asking of all
the people involved in the case, and it is very important that
I should not. I do understand the Committee's interest but there
is nothing that I can say now which resolves the conundrum about
whether a paper which says it is marked to a particular office
reached that office.
Mr Wilshire: It may
not be for you to do the Legg Inquiry's work for them, it is your
job to answer our questions, and I will repeat mine: will you
go back and will you ask whether or not it was received by his
private office? Will you do that? It is a very straight forward
question.
Chairman
215. Whether there was a record of it.
(Sir John Kerr) There is no record.
216. There is no record?
(Sir John Kerr) I am sorry, could I distinguish——
Mr Wilshire
217. Then why did you not say that in the
first place?
(Sir John Kerr) Could I distinguish for a moment,
Chairman, and I am sorry this may be repetitive but I think it
is important because I see Ms Abbott is sceptical, it is important
to distinguish between the careful handling and recording of formal
advice to a particular Minister. In old terminology, you will
remember, Chairman, blue paper, the top copy paper—and Ms
Abbott will understand as well—is carefully recorded and
moves around in the Foreign Office in a way where one can create
a paper trail, one can go off and do what Mr Wilshire was hoping
I would be able to do. In relation to side copying, that is not
the case. Offices are inundated with paper, with E-mail, with
telegrams——
Mr Rowlands
218. Sir John, you ended with telegrams,
from my memory, and it is an ancient one I accept, the circulation
list of every telegram is printed.
(Sir John Kerr) The circulation list is printed,
absolutely, and I can tell you where every telegram went but not
who read them.
Chairman
219. Can we sum up where we are on Mr Wilshire's
question? You have checked and there is no record of a flimsy
or secondary copy of that matter being received by the private
office of the Minister of State, Mr Tony Lloyd?
(Sir John Kerr) Correct.
Chairman: It might
have been helpful to have said that earlier.
