Examination of witnesess (Questions 420 - 433)
TUESDAY 23 JUNE 1998
SIR JOHN
KERR, KCMG,
MR ROB
YOUNG, CMG,
MR FRANCIS
RICHARDS, CMG,
CVO, MR MICHAEL
ARTHUR, CMG
and MR ROLAND
SMITH, CMG
Mrs Bottomley
420. I respect the Department for their
restraint on this matter. How about the press department—has
the budget there changed in any way? Has that reduced or is it
the same formula as the rest of the Department, numbers and budgets?
(Mr Young) I am not sure about the number of staff
in the news department today compared to, say, two years ago.
I think it has gone up slightly, but again we can provide the
figures and costs.
421. And all staffing and general publications,
for example, the Mission Statement and the very exciting video
and other materials we have received over the year, I wondered
how the priorities for costs in that area were set against priorities
for other matters described in the priorities.
(Sir John Kerr) We can certainly send you the
numbers.
Mr Godman
422. Before we move on, I just wish to echo
what Sir John and Ernie Ross said about the professionalism of
our officials whom we met on our visit last week to the Middle
East. I was most impressed by their professionalism in dealing
with very difficult circumstances. I know comparisons are odious,
but I think your people in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are doing a
very fine job.
(Sir John Kerr) Thank you very much.
Mr Rowlands
423. I served on the Committee that did
the report on South America and particularly places like Brazil
stood out amazingly in contrast with other countries, but even
more so the figures you have given that we have 14, the French
have got 44, so what in the name of heaven are 44 Frenchmen doing
in some of these places? Are they very unproductive? The margins
are so huge and enormous and the differences are so great that
something either went wrong in the counting or indeed are they
using this as sort of some form of extension of social security
for their diplomatic service? I could imagine five or six being
the difference, but the margins are enormous. Is there any way
you could provide us with an analysis, a bit more than just the
quantitative analysis, of exactly what is happening? What are
all the French and the Germans doing?
(Sir John Kerr) I do not know, Mr Rowlands. I
am certainly prepared to think about it, but I have been trying
today to avoid a row with the Treasury and to avoid a row with
the Ministry of Defence and I do not particularly wish to row
with the French or the Germans either, if possible. I suspect
that what you would like to do is to get enough data from me in
order to devise an index which proves that one UK-based diplomat
is worth umpteen foreigners. I would agree with you, that this
would be a good game to play, but I am not sure how far I can
do it diplomatically.
424. But you do admit that these are figures
not relative, but there is simply an enormous difference?
(Sir John Kerr) They are enormous because the
countries I have been mentioning are countries of new opportunities
and others have been better placed and better resourced to seize
the opportunities than we are.
425. Do the French and German Governments,
as a proportion of their budget or their GDP, spend much more
on commercial and diplomatic work?
(Sir John Kerr) In both cases, I think yes.
(Mr Young) Before the pound started appreciating,
I recall that the relative sums being spent by the Germans and
the French were 60 per cent more by the Germans than us and between
25 and 30 per cent more by the French than us. Those figures have
of course come down because of the increased value of sterling,
but that was the position two years ago.
426. And the French and German Governments
are not going through the painstaking comprehensive reviews of
their public expenditure that might lead them to believe they
have got inflated diplomatic services?
(Mr Young) I have regular contacts with my French
and German opposite numbers and they like to assure me that they
are going through the same degree of pain as we are, Mr Rowlands.
They have budgetary pressures of the same kind that we do, but
the results obviously over time have not been as great in their
case as they have in ours.
Mrs Bottomley
427. Chairman, I thought we should cover
further the question of the landmark missions and residences overseas.
The debate has polarised between their being luxurious and costly
heritage buildings which we should dispose of compared with their
being a way of exercising influence and indeed the occupants of
such residences normally have pretty little privacy, but how does
the Permanent Under-Secretary see the investment in these heritage
landmark properties alongside the decisions he has to make?
(Sir John Kerr) I think that I see it a bit like
the Duke of Wellington did who really, by the way, was not very
good at avoiding rows with the Treasury and there are good despatches
from the Peninsular War in which he asked the Treasury whether
they would prefer him to do some accounting or win the war. When
he got to Paris, he had the good sense to buy the Bonaparte House
on the Rue du Faubourg St Honoré next to the Champs Elysées.
That was a very good idea. If we were ever to give up the house
that the Duke, as Military Governor of Paris, had the good sense
to buy, I suppose he could have requisitioned it, but he bought
the freehold, I think the effect on the French perception of us
would be very considerable. I think if we were to give up the
Lutyens House in Washington, which is not really necessary for
entertaining the Administration, but it is necessary for entertaining
the Hill, it is what brings the Senate round, I think some Members
of the Committee know that I did try quite hard to deepen our
relationship with the Senate in particular and—
Chairman
428. Indeed.
(Sir John Kerr) —and 250 guys from the Hill
were guests in the house while I was there and that house entertains
15,000/16,000 Americans a year. Some of it is about promoting
British business and sometimes we recover the costs of that from
the British business concerned. Some of it is about promoting
a British institution, a British NGO, a British charity, the Royal
Shakespeare Company, whatever, and that in some cases we recoup
and in some cases we do not. It is a big machine which is actually
extremely nice to live in because it is a lovely house, but it
is quite hard work to live in it. You have 300 house guests a
year and 15,000 American guests. You are feeding between 5,000
and 10,000 people a year in the house, including select committees
who are always extremely welcome. I do think that to back out
of that sort of property would be a very bad thing. But we do
need to use Mr Arthur's key performance indicators. We need to
check in each case and there may be landmarks around the world
which we could actually get out of, but we need to have a scientific
system which Michael Arthur and his troops have devised for checking
that we get real value for money from these properties.
Sir John Stanley
429. Permanent Under-Secretary, we have
of course, as a Committee, taken note of your letter to the Clerk
of the Committee on the 22nd June, but I should be grateful for
your confirmation that you are entirely ready to answer questions
that fall outside the remit of Sir Thomas Legg's investigations.
(Sir John Kerr) Chairman, I am of course happy
to deal with questions that fall outside the remit of the Legg
investigation, but in the light of the Foreign Secretary's letter
of the 15th, I need to tell you and Sir John that, unlike the
last time I appeared, I am not in a position to assist the Committee
on matters which fall into overlap territory, and it was clear
on the last occasion that I was here that there were some Members
of the Committee who wished to take us quite squarely into Legg
territory, but, given the Foreign Secretary's letter, I am afraid
I—
Chairman: Sir John,
let us make progress where we can. Sir John?
Sir John Stanley
430. Thank you. Sir John, the questions
that I wish to put to you in the area of military advice and some
intelligence aspects are all matters that have been the subject
of questions either oral or written on the floor of the House
and indeed have been answered by Foreign Office ministers. Indeed
I had an answer from the Foreign Secretary only last week on one
of the intelligence aspects, so I hope we can proceed. First of
all, on the general area of military advice, I should be grateful
if you could confirm that when military assistance is provided
by government departments other than your own or agencies that
may be removed from your own Department, that is always done with
the knowledge and in effect the approval of the Foreign Office?
(Sir John Kerr) May I ask Mr Smith who is expert
in this area?
(Mr Smith) Yes, Chairman, these matters are always
done in close consultation between the relevant departments.
431. And, therefore, there is no question,
say, of, for example, the Ministry of Defence proceeding with
military assistance to a country which was not approved by the
Foreign Office?
(Mr Smith) I am not aware of any case in which
that has happened. There would always be close consultation on
these matters.
Sir John Stanley: Against
that background, could you tell the Committee whether advice was
provided either by Service personnel or by British official civilian
personnel, whether military advice was provided by either of those
sources to the Government of President Kabbah while he was in
exile?
Mr Ross: Chairman,
I object to this line of questioning.
Sir John Stanley
432. These are all questions which ministers
are answering.
(Sir John Kerr) I am afraid, Chairman, that we
are being taken into territory which I warned I would be unable
to follow Sir John into. The Foreign Secretary has made it quite
clear that his concern is that we should not prejudice an ongoing
inquiry. He has made clear that his answer is not "no",
but his answer is "not yet". I think you have to accept,
Sir John, that given that officials give evidence before select
committees on behalf of and under the instructions of their ministers,
it is very difficult for either Mr Smith or I to answer questions
which take us into an area which clearly will be covered by the
Legg Inquiry.
Sir John Stanley
433. Sir John, I must put it to you that
I have the terms of reference of the Legg Inquiry in front of
me and the Legg Inquiry terms of reference—
Mr Ross: Chairman,
I do object.
Sir John Stanley: The
Legg Inquiry terms of reference relate to "allegations about
government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone
by UK citizens or firms". I am not asking you, Permanent
Under-Secretary, about the supply of arms, quite clearly; I am
asking you about the issue of military advice, which is quite
different, and I am asking you whether—
Mr Ross: Chairman,
I do object to this line of questioning.
Chairman: Let Sir
John finish his questions.
Sir John Stanley: I
am asking you, Sir John, to respond on the question of whether
military advice was given to the Government of Sierra Leone in
exile.
Chairman: An objection
has been raised to the nature of the question. Are you prepared
to hear what Sir John—
Mr Ross: No.
Chairman: Do you intend
to continue with this, Sir John, in which case we will have to
clear the room and consider the next steps?
Sir John: There is
some difficulty about military advice, but can I also ask some
questions in relation to intelligence?
Chairman: Would you
set out briefly, Sir John, the nature of the questions which you
wish to ask? The Committee will then consider in camera whether
these are proper and what we do.
Sir John Stanley: Can
I just ask whether Sir John would answer these questions?
Chairman: As a yes
or no?
Sir John Stanley: Yes,
and may I just preface my comments to you, Sir John, by saying
that I believe these questions or the answers to these questions
are non-classified, but of course that is a matter for you and
your colleagues to judge and if you took the view that they were
classified, obviously you would say so straightaway and we would
then proceed to meet in private. The first question I would like
to ask you is whether the British intelligence coverage of Sierra
Leone that was arranged after President Kabbah went into exile,
whether that was approved in the normal way?
Mr Ross: Chairman,
I object to this line of questioning and I would rather we moved
into a private session.
Chairman: Sir John,
let us hold for a moment. There are going to be a series of questions.
May I suggest either that we now go into camera or that Sir John
puts those questions down on paper and that you indicate to the
Committee your response to those questions so that the Committee
can then coolly consider, in the light of your response, where
we go. Sir John, are you prepared to put those questions down
on paper for the consideration of Sir John Kerr?
Sir John Stanley: No,
I wish to proceed via a normal evidence session. This is purely
a procedural question and I have asked whether this was subject
to normal approval.
Chairman: I have had
objection taken by Mr Ross and, as is the normal custom, I will
then have to go into camera, but Mr Heath wishes to make a point.
Mr Heath: I wish to
make the point, Chairman, that the objection that Mr Ross is raising,
whatever it may be, cannot possibly be contingent on the answers
that Sir John may or may not give to those questions. Whether
he wishes to answer or not is irrelevant to the objection that
Mr Ross will no doubt give us in camera. If I can say, I see no
problem with the questions that have been put, but that is a matter
we need to discuss in camera.
Mr Mackinlay: We have
not had the full menu of the questions, have we?
Chairman: Can I suggest
that we have reached the point where the Committee must consider
this matter in camera. May I, therefore, ask for the witnesses
and the public to leave the room for the Committee to consider
this question.
| 
