SIERRA LEONE: FURTHER EXCHANGES OF CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE FOREIGN SECRETARY
1. On 21 May 1998, in its First Special Report,[1]
the Committee reported an exchange of correspondence with the
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Committee,
pursuant to its powers to send for papers, had sought copies of
all telegrams received at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
since 1 October 1997 concerning events in Sierra Leone and the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office activities there, or relating
to that country. The Secretary of State refused the Committee's
request and the Committee therefore sought the views of the House.
2. On 1 June, at his own request, the Secretary of
State had a meeting with the Chairman and subsequently wrote to
him as follows:
We discussed this morning
the scope for allowing the Committee access to the information
contained in telegrams sent from our High Commission in Freetown.
As I explained, and have already made clear to the
House, all the relevant documents will be available to Sir Thomas
Legg as part of his investigation. He will be able to consider
whether they were properly acted upon. As you know, his report
will be published.
Clearly, Parliament has a major interest in the outcome
of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation. The Committee itself will
also be able to consider the report as it sees fit.
At this stage my priority is to ensure that everything
possible is done to allow Sir Thomas Legg to complete his investigation
as rapidly as possible, and to produce a comprehensive and accurate
report. In his view, which I share, it could be damaging to that
objective to release now documents falling within the remit of
the investigation.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree
to wait until the report is published. At that point, I will be
pleased to follow the Pergau precedent which you suggested this
morning.
There are legitimate concerns about putting telegrams
into the public domain as this may sharply diminish the readiness
of representatives of other governments to speak freely to our
diplomatic staff. Nevertheless, upon completion of Sir Thomas
Legg's report, I would be willing, as you suggested, to make available
a summary of the contents of the telegrams, and to allow nominated
members of the Committee to visit the FCO to verify that summary
by reference to the documents themselves.
If, in the light of this letter, you would like to
discuss it further with me, I am, of course, ready to arrange
a meeting as soon as is mutually convenient.
3. The Committee noted the Secretary of State's letter
at its meeting on 2 June and considered its substance on 9 June.
In the light of that consideration, the Chairman wrote to the
Secretary of State on 11 June as follows:
Thank you for your letter
of 1 June and for your willingness to make available a summary
of the contents of the telegrams relating to Sierra Leone, which
the Committee has requested sight of, and to allow nominated Members
of the Committee to visit the FCO to verify that summary by reference
to the documents themselves. The Committee welcomed this decision,
which follows the Pergau precedent. However, it does not accept
your contention that the release of the summary and sight of the
documents should be delayed until Sir Thomas Legg has completed
his investigation.
There are two principal reasons for this. First,
the Committee does not agree with either Sir Thomas or yourself
that there is any risk of prejudice to his enquiry in releasing
the relevant documents to the Committee now. As you are no doubt
aware, papers submitted to a Select Committee remain confidential
to the Committee unless and until the Committee decides to publish
them. Given the Committee's responsibility to the House to examine
FCO administration it is hardly likely to act in a manner prejudicial
to a major enquiry in that very area, on which it will undoubtedly
wish to draw in its future work.
The second is a more general question of principle.
The Legg enquiry has been commissioned by yourself with the concurrence
of other Ministers. It is therefore a Government enquiry. The
Committee rejects the principle, implicit in your current position,
that the establishment of a Government enquiry in a particular
area precludes the supply to a Select Committee of factual material
which may also fall within the scope of that enquiry. No area
of Government expenditure, administration or policy can be "ring-fenced"
from parliamentary scrutiny by the establishment of a Government
enquiry, however eminent are those conducting it.
The Committee therefore resolved to request that
you make the relevant material available to it forthwith and I
should be grateful if you would do so. It also presumes that it
will be for the Committee to nominate the Members to visit the
FCO to verify the summary of the telegrams. I should be grateful
if you could confirm that this is also your understanding of the
position.
4. The Chairman saw the Secretary of State informally
in the House on the evening of 11 June. On 15 June, the Foreign
Secretary (who the Committee understands had not, at that time,
seen the Chairman's letter of 11 June) wrote again to the Chairman
as follows:
We discussed last week the
Committee's continuing wish that I release, at this stage, the
telegrams sent from our High Commission in Freetown.
In my letter of 1 June I offered to make available
to the FAC a summary of the contents of those telegrams and to
allow nominated members of the Committee to visit the FCO to verify
that summary by reference to the documents themselves (the procedure
followed by the last government in respect of the Pergau Inquiry).
The Government cannot disclose information which
falls within the remit of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation while
it is in progress because to do so could prejudice it. It is also
Sir Thomas Legg's view that the release of documents now could
be damaging to the prospects for the early completion of a comprehensive
and consistent report. As you said in the House on 18 May, it
would be unwise for the Select Committee to attempt to duplicate
a parallel inquiry.
The Government will not withhold information for
longer than is necessary to ensure that the full and independent
investigation which I have established can complete its work without
prejudice. However, we cannot, before the completion of Sir Thomas
Legg's report, release or discuss the documents before it, including
those sought by members of the Committee, as noted in the FCO
memorandum submitted on 4 June.[2]
I would of course be prepared to consider specific requests to
extend the offer in my letter of 1 June to other categories of
documents, in addition to telegrams, on the matters covered by
Sir Thomas Legg's report.
5. The Committee welcomes the Secretary of State's
willingness to make available summaries of the telegrams and to
allow nominated members of the Committee to verify that summary
by reference to the documents themselves, following the precedent
of the Pergau inquiry.[3]
It also welcomes the Secretary of State's willingness, as set
out in his letter to the Chairman of 15 June, to consider specific
requests to extend the offer in his letter of 1 June to other
categories of documents in addition to telegrams on the matters
covered by Sir Thomas Legg's report. However, the Secretary of
State remains unwilling to release this or any other information
which falls within the remit of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation
while it is in progress.
6. The Committee considers that it is wrong in principle
for the Executive to seek unilaterally to impose prior conditions
on the release of information properly sought by a Select Committee
in pursuit of the responsibilities given to it by the House. The
views of the House are sought at an early date.
1 First Special Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
Session 1997-1998, HC 760. Back
2
Not reproduced. Back
3
This refers to a previous occasion when the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office provided non-classified summaries of classified material
and Members verified their accuracy by reference to the classified
documents themselves. See the Third Report from the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Session 1993-94, HC 271, paras 9-11. Back
| 
