280. That is not the question
I asked you, Sir John. When was it first referred to the Secretary
of State?
(Sir John Kerr) The Secretary of State knows of
the existence of the REU. He had been briefed on the existence
of the REU.
281. You did not.
(Sir John Kerr) Be fair, Sir Peter, I did not
know its name, I had forgotten what they called it, but I knew
it existed.
Ms Abbott
282. Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
(Sir John Kerr) The Foreign Secretary knows it
exists. We all know its name.
Sir Peter Emery
283. Now.
(Sir John Kerr) You are asking me whether he was
briefed on the reference in February to Sandline.
284. When was he first informed?
(Sir John Kerr) First informed of?
285. The breach of the United Nations' Order
in Council on export of arms to Sandline. When was he first informed?
(Sir John Kerr) We are talking about the Customs
and Excise investigation to establish whether there was a breach
and that———
286. Sir John, the Prime Minister says "we
have nothing to hide", the Foreign Secretary says "we
have nothing to hide", why are we running around in circles?
I will repeat for the third time, Sir John.
(Sir John Kerr) I have answered your question,
the end of April. I think that is my third answer.
287. It is the first time we have heard
it. The end of April, is that the 21st or the 28th, approximately
when in April?
(Sir John Kerr) The 27th/28th I think.
288. The 27th and 28th. When was that first
referred to the Minister responsible for Africa, Mr Lloyd?
(Sir John Kerr) Meetings of the——
Mr Lloyd saw papers at some early stage in April, I cannot remember
the date.
289. When did Baroness Symons know?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know if the Restricted
Enforcement Unit activity was ever drawn to Baroness Symons' attention,
but the fact that, as I explained in answer to Mr Mackinlay's
question and to Sir John Stanley's question, the relevant authorities
were in action on the subject, was made clear to Baroness Symons
at the beginning of March.
290. At the beginning of March?
(Sir John Kerr) Yes, that has already been explained.
291. We have got that cleared up somewhat.
Can I then put the second point? The Chairman asked you to notify
us, and I put the question to you, of the five members of the
Foreign Service who had been in contact with Sandline or Sandline's
associates concerning Sierra Leone, and you immediately accepted
that there had been minutes and memos made of these.
(Sir John Kerr) I did.
292. You told me that you felt you could
not necessarily supply these because of the Customs & Excise
inquiry. I suggested it was nothing which was sub judice
at that moment, there was not an inquiry, but you said you would
have to go back and get a legal opinion. May I now have those
papers sent to the Committee?
(Sir John Kerr) Mr Chairman, this is absolutely
central to the Legg Inquiry and of course to the question of disciplinary
proceedings. I hope that is not the likely outcome but it is clearly
a conceivable outcome. I really do not think it would be right,
while Legg is interviewing these people, taking witness statements
from these people, that their papers should be circulated to the
Committee.
293. But we are told there is nothing to
hide. We are told in fact there was not any indication of what
Sandline were going to do. These five papers will clear that absolutely.
As this Committee we would like to clear that up absolutely and
by having them we would be able to do so overnight of great benefit
to the Government. For goodness sake, we are not suggesting, Sir
John, that this merits disciplinary action, we are just saying
that these memos and these notes should be made available to the
Committee and we have a preference over anybody else or any other
inquiry as the High Court of Parliament to have these papers made
available. Are you refusing to make them available?
(Sir John Kerr) Could I remind you, Sir Peter,
of——
294. Are you refusing to make them available,
Sir John?
(Sir John Kerr) Could I remind you, Sir Peter,
of the Foreign Secretary's offer to the Committee to make available
under the Pergau rules the summary of the relevant telegrams in
this case and to allow nominated members of the Committee to confirm
the accuracy of the summary? I see no reason why that should not
at the same time extend to the category of papers which Sir Peter
is talking about now. I see no difficulty about that. My concern
is natural justice and fairness to the people who are being cross-examined
on these papers by the independent investigation. It is a sequencing
point, Sir Peter.
295. I must repeat, I see what you are trying
to suggest as being most important. The Committee have not accepted
this, I think I can say that we are writing to the Foreign Secretary
to say we are not accepting this letter absolutely, we are pleased
he is moving part of the way but we wish to see the telegrams
immediately, not at the end of the inquiry. Therefore, we would
like to see these memoranda today, tomorrow, we would like them
to be made available to this Committee, not an unreasonable request.
There is no national security involved in this at all. We are
not making a value judgment about the individuals but we must
see those memos and notes and please will you make them available
to the Committee?
(Sir John Kerr) I shall report what Sir Peter
has asked.
Mr Heath
296. If we can move to the REU, obviously
you are much better informed on the way it operates now than you
were when you were before us before, at least you know the name
now. I am still not clear about the structure, about the reporting
arrangements of the REU and how it fits into the Government machine.
Could you illuminate for me as to exactly which departments are
represented on the committee and how they report to either senior
officials or Ministers?
(Sir John Kerr) Certainly. If I may, I would like
to call on Mr Smith because he chairs the senior committee to
which the Restricted Enforcement Unit works.
(Mr Smith) As a general introduction I might draw
the Committee's attention to a passage in the report of the Scott
Inquiry which deals precisely with the role of the REU. It begins
at paragraph C(2)67 and essentially that is unaltered. The Department's
representatives, apart from the Foreign Office, are the Department
of Trade & Industry, the Ministry of Defence, Customs &
Excise and the intelligence services. The REU is essentially a
forum for exchanging information. It meets fortnightly normally
and it looks at a large number of cases to make sure that all
the information that exists somewhere within the Government machine
in relation to each case has been drawn to the attention of each
of the departments who might be interested in it. To consider
a typical arms export licence, the application is received by
the Department of Trade & Industry,it is considered by the
Foreign Office and by the Ministry of Defence, and in some cases
there might be intelligence information which is relevant to that
export licence application. All of this comes together in the
REU. The REU is not itself an enforcement body, it is, as I say,
a forum for the exchange of information. It reports on its general
operations to a body called the Non-Proliferation Steering Group,
which I chair, and which consists of the same Whitehall departments
at my level. But the Non-Proliferation Steering Group is not looking
at individual cases unless they might illustrate some general
problem, it is looking at the general way in which we approach
questions of proliferation and export licensing, and we are always
looking to see if there are ways in which we can improve our handling
of matters.
297. Can I narrow the field a little? I
am grateful for that. When we are talking about a report of sanctions
busting, of which currently there are not quite so many as the
wider sphere, who instigates the investigation, and when the investigations
are in progress to whom does that investigation report prior to
action being taken?
(Mr Smith) That would obviously depend on the
exact nature of the allegation. Sanctions busting in this country,
which is therefore a matter of evading an export licence or giving
false information on an export licence, is a matter for Customs
& Excise, they are the enforcement authority, so it would
be a matter of making sure they have the facts and were following
them up. But, as you have seen in the information supplied to
the Committee, there can also be information about possible cases
of sanctions busting or illegal exports from other countries,
and if it is considered appropriate the Foreign Office takes that
up with the government of the country concerned.
298. I thought I had understood the basic
process here, with the FCO, the DTI, intelligence services and
MoD pooling information and Customs & Excise doing the investigation,
but I was slightly thrown by an answer given by the Attorney General
on Thursday of last week when he indicated that Treasury Ministers
remain responsible for the investigation of these offences and
that he also has a clear locus in that he is consulted
in all prosecutions of defence export offences where the intention
is an ingredient of the offence, and that he is generally kept
informed of activity in this area. Does the Attorney General have
representatives on these committees? Are Treasury Ministers briefed
as a matter of course? At what ministerial level is the decision
to proceed with a prosecution advised to Government?
(Mr Smith) I believe I am right in saying that
it is Treasury Ministers who have ministerial responsibility for
Customs and Excise, there is no other responsible Minister. That
explains the reference to Treasury Ministers.
299. I am not trying to trick you on this,
I was surprised that the Attorney General should say that Treasury
Ministers not only continue to be answerable, which is obvious
because there is a departmental responsibility, but remain responsible
for the investigation of such offences which suggests a rather
closer involvement than I had realised.
(Mr Smith) No, I think that is talking about ministerial
responsibility: here is an organ of Government doing something
so some Minister must be responsible and it is Treasury Ministers.
I think that is what that means. When it comes to prosecutions
you are getting into questions here about the machinery of justice,
on which I am afraid I cannot claim to be an expert, but naturally
the Government Law Officers get involved on questions of who should
be prosecuted, exactly what the offence should be, how it should
be described, whether it is in the public interest to proceed
I suppose could be an issue.
