Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
THURSDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2005
CHRIS GRAYLING
MP
Q20 Mr Dismore: That is a different
issue. I just wanted to check the basis of how you put the question
and you have told us that. I think we are going to see the video
anyway at some stage, all being well. There is another question
I wanted to put to you about that. You said that, because you
were a new Member, you did not follow it up, but if you had strong
suspicions, I am very surprised you did not say, "Are you
sure about that?" or something like that to push the question
not necessarily in a very aggressive way, but perhaps to trigger
something.
Chris Grayling: Well, I suppose
I think that we ought to be able in this House, when we ask a
straight question to the Secretary of State in a select committee,
to expect an up-front answer. I was surprised by his answer, I
remember being very surprised by his answer, but there is supposed
to be a fundamental principle in this place that Ministers tell
the truth to committees and are up-front with committees. I would
have been turning round and challenging the veracity of the evidence
he was giving to the Committee at that point based on no evidence
and I do not think that would have been a responsible thing to
do. Had these papers never emerged in the court case, none of
this would ever have come out.
Q21 Mr Dismore: In relation to Mr
Byers, as far as the Select Committee is concerned, is it the
case that he was being economical with the truth and perhaps not
being as forthcoming as he could have been or are you, as an alternative,
saying that he knowingly and deliberately misled the Committee?
Chris Grayling: My view is that
he knowingly and deliberately misled the Committee. I understand
why he did it; it would have been politically embarrassing for
the Government to admit at that point that these discussions had
taken place. I have no doubt that had he said to the Committee,
"Actually we started working on this straight after the election.
We held joint meetings with Number 10 and the Treasury about planning
possible future strategies for Railtrack, which included consideration
of forcing it into administration", it would have been a
huge story, highly embarrassing for the Government, and it would
have rewritten a lot of what they had said in the previous few
weeks, so I think he was put into a position where he was asked
to give an answer to a question he did not want to give and, therefore,
he gave an answer to that question which was not truthful.
Q22 Mr Dismore: So you say that the
motive for him responding in the way that he did to the Select
Committee was to avoid political embarrassment?
Chris Grayling: Yes, that is my
view.
Q23 Mr Dismore: Can I go on to the
personal statement now. By the time this personal statement was
made, he would have been aware that all of these documents were
in the public domain.
Chris Grayling: Yes.
Q24 Mr Dismore: You had got them,
the newspapers had got them, all those involved in the court case
had seen them and all the rest of it. Are you saying that in his
personal statement to the House, given that background, Mr Byers
would knowingly and deliberately have misled the House in his
statement?
Chris Grayling: Well, I cannot
see any other explanation. When we have got in front of us a minute
or a memo written by Mr Byers to the Prime Minister in which he
talks about confidentially recruiting investment banking advisers,
I do not see how that can be squared with a statement that the
discussions were not discussions in his understanding of the word.
I just think that is weaselling his way out of facing up to what
really happened. I cannot comprehend how he can seriously think
that is a justification.
Q25 Mr Dismore: But is there not
a difference between putting a bit of a gloss on how you make
your personal statement and knowingly and deliberately misleading
the House? It would be a rather bizarre thing for somebody to
do, knowing full well that you had got all the paperwork and everybody
else had, in that context then to stand up in the House and make
a statement that was knowingly and deliberately misleading, would
it not?
Chris Grayling: Well, it would
be a strange thing to do. I guess it is for this Committee to
decide whether it is satisfied that the personal statement is
consistent with what we now know happened. Basically, and I have
not got the exact wording of the personal statement in front of
me, but he described it as inadvertent to me and he described
it as being not discussions in his understanding of the word "discussions".
It smacks to me of the defence of certain senior American politicians
when confronting difficult circumstances who play on the words,
but I do not think that is satisfactory. If you are going to make
an apology to the House, you just apologise to the House. You
do not try and justify it by coming up with things which I do
not think are credible, and I do not think the explanation he
gave to the House was credible.
Q26 Mr Dismore: So what would his
motive be for making a knowingly and deliberately misleading statement
to the House, bearing in mind the Opposition had actually got
the paperwork which could have led to in fact what has happened
here?
Chris Grayling: Failure to understand
the old adage, "When you're in a hole, stop digging",
I think is the correct answer to that.
Q27 Mr Dismore: That is hardly a
motive though, is it?
Chris Grayling: I do not know.
You will have to ask Mr Byers that. I cannot understand why he
said what he did rather than just standing up and apologising
to the House. I listened to him and thought, "If he just
stood up and said, `I'm sorry, it was a difficult time politically.
It would have been embarrassing for me to provide full information.
I accept I should have done and, in retrospect, it was the wrong
thing to do. I should have been up-front with the Committee, and
I apologise', that would have been the end of the matter".
Q28 Mr Dismore: So your view is that
Mr Byers is a liar?
Chris Grayling: Yes, absolutely.
Q29 Nick Harvey: Obviously all this
information in front of you has only come to light now four years
later, but when you put the question to Mr Byers, had you got
anything then which you were going on or were you simply using
a combination of common sense and guesswork? Were you on a complete
fishing trip or had you got some information which led you to
believe that something of this sort had been taking place?
Chris Grayling: I think, if my
memory serves me correct, the thing that gave rise to concern
was that we asked various questions about the meeting that took
place on 25 July between Railtrack's Chairman, Mr Robinson, and
the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's story was always,
and I am paraphrasing somewhat, basically that Railtrack had come
to the Government and said, "We're running out of money.
We're in significant financial problems and we need extra financial
help from the Government if we are going to survive". Mr
Robinson always disputed the detail of that. He said that he had
asked for a letter of comfort for the banks that the Government
was not going to pull the plug on Railtrack, but there was a divergence
of evidence between the two as to what had actually been said
and discussed at that meeting. The Government then published the
official minute of that meeting which was only half complete and
appeared to have been written some time after the event, which
caused some degree of concern to say, "The Government isn't
being entirely up-front over what happened at that meeting".
It was a combination of that and also the issue, as I mentioned
earlier, where the Government threatened the Rail Regulator at
the time Railtrack was put into administration that if he intervened,
and he did have the power to intervene and he had the power to
impose a new financial settlement on the industry and require
the Treasury to pay up, so the Rail Regulator could have done
so, but the Government said to him, "If you do that, we will
rush a new law through Parliament and take away your powers".
It seemed unlikely that that Bill, and it was clear that that
Bill had been drafted, but it seemed unlikely that that had been
drafted over the 48 hours prior to them doing that, and it looked
to us as if it had been done over a longer period. The other area
that the Government always kind of pushed us away from was, "When
did you actually start that work?", and it was those two
factors which prompted me to ask this question of, "Was this
just started by Mr Robinson coming to you and saying that Railtrack
had got major financial problems or was it part of a longer-term
agenda to restructure the industry?"
Q30 Nick Harvey: I am intrigued by
your usage of "we" and "us".
Chris Grayling: When I talk about
"we", the colleague who was most closely questioning
about this was Anne McIntosh, the Member for the Vale of York,
so if I refer to "we", it is because we were both asking
questions about this area and obviously we shared opinions outside
meetings as to what we thought the evidence was suggesting.
Q31 Nick Harvey: Had either of you
or, to your knowledge, had any of your Party spokespeople had
any meetings with Mr Robinson or indeed with the regulator to
discuss any of this prior to your attending that Select Committee
meeting?
Chris Grayling: Neither of the
two Members on the Select Committee had. I have never met Mr Robinson,
so I certainly had not and I am not aware that Anne McIntosh had.
I honestly could not speak for the Party spokespeople.
Q32 Nick Harvey: Did you arrive at
that meeting intending to ask this question or was it provoked
by exchanges during the meeting and, therefore, spontaneous?
Chris Grayling: It was spontaneous,
certainly as far as I can recall. I certainly do not remember
a kind of strategy to get the Government on this issue where it
was something that came out, and I think if you look at the transcript
of questioning, it was one of a range of questions I asked and
there certainly was no clear plan that this was the point I was
going to get them on.
Q33 Angela Browning: You have told
us that you were astonished at the reply you received at question
857. Do you recall whether, after that Select Committee hearing,
you were prompted to take any further action to pursue it through
parliamentary procedures? For example, did you table any written
questions or attempt to speak at oral questions to try and pursue
the answer that you had received?
Chris Grayling: From memory, I
tabled a very large number of written questions about this issue,
so I would be surprised if I had not done. Looking back, I would
be astonished if I had not asked questions about the meetings
and about the work done, but I would have to check that.
Q34 Angela Browning: I wonder if
perhaps, Chairman, Mr Grayling could provide us with any supplementary
pursuance of this after the date.
Chris Grayling: I will certainly
try.[14]
25 November 2005: "As requested by Mrs
Browning, I have checked to see what further action I took about
the matters we have discussed. I have found a number of related
questions in Hansard, but they do not tie in with the exact date
of the meeting. However I have found evidence that I was concerned
about the accuracy of statements made at the time by Mr Byers—the
excerpt below (see HC Deb, 15 November 2001, col 1010) is from
Hansard the day after the evidence session. This was part of the
pattern of doubts that I had about the process that led up to
the administration order. You will recall that I mentioned the
uncertainties about what actually happened at the meeting with
Mr Robinson during my evidence yesterday. I hope this is helpful
to the Committee."
5 December 2005: "I have checked back,
and from memory I think I decided that the best way forward—together
with Anne McIntosh—was to put the issue on the record in
a minority report to the Select Committee's report on the rail
industry. This sets out clearly the concerns raised about the
meeting on 25 June that I raised in my point of order. It was
the key point where we also had clearly contradictory evidence—as
I mentioned to the Committee, I had no evidence to set down in
writing allegations about the matters which your Committee is
currently considering—just suspicions. You can read the
minority report at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/
cmselct/cmtlgr/239/23912.htm"
Q35 Angela Browning: I just want
to try and get into my mind the focus of the nature of the allegation
post Mr Byers' personal statement which you have talked about
this morning. You particularly made reference to the fact that
the wording in his personal statement, "inadvertent error",
is the real reason why you are unable to accept the personal statement.
Is that correct?
Chris Grayling: Well, the reason
that I pursued it is, first of all, I was sent or I think I received
on the same afternoon shortly before the personal statement a
copy of the Downing Street note that is in this pack, the minute
of the meeting held on 5 July with Stephen Byers, John Spellar,
Andrew Smith and Lord Macdonald. You will see that that does make
specific reference where it says, "Stephen Byers said there
was a need to consider all of the options. DTLR, HMT and No 10
officials should work together to develop them"[15],
and there are one or two other references to the future of the
industry. I simply cannot accept that the Secretary of State,
who has had that meeting and been in discussion with senior people
at Number 10 Downing Street, would turn around and say, "They
were not discussions in my understanding of the word `discussions'
and, therefore, it was an inadvertent error". When I stood
up and gave my response to the personal statement in the House,
I raised a point of order and then made a speech the following
day. I listened to what he said and I felt that it was a very
half-hearted apology and, as Sir George described it, it was pleading
guilty to a lesser offence rather than accepting what I think
he really did which was to mislead the Committee. That was the
essence of it. I do not think that it is possible to square the
explanation that he gave in his personal statement to the House
with the documentation that you see in front of you. I just do
not think those two equate.
Q36 Angela Browning: You are familiar,
I am sure, with Mr Rowley's cross-examination of Mr Byers on this
point of your question in the court case. I do not know if you
have a copy of it there.
Chris Grayling: I have a copy
of part of it in front of me.
Angela Browning: It is just the bit where
he cross-questions him about that.
Mr Llwyd: Page 40.
Q37 Angela Browning: It is where
Byers is saying, "I accept this is not an accurate statement",
and then Mr Rowley says, "It was deliberately not an accurate
statement, was it not, Mr Byers?", and his response to that
was, "It was such a long time ago, I cannot remember, but
it is not a truthful statement and I apologise for that. I cannot
remember the motives behind it".[16]
Now, we have mentioned motive and clearly if your allegation is
that he was deliberately misleading the Select Committee rather
than it being an inadvertent error, then that area of cross-examination
in the court case does go into some depth about possible motivation.
If I look a bit further down, it says, "There is no other
possible reason, is there, Mr Byers?", and Mr Byers says,
"In the context of a select committee hearing, there are
other reasons but they are—none of them are acceptable,
I would accept that."[17]
What is your own interpretation of that discussion between the
barrister and Mr Byers on this subject of motive? What do you
draw from that?
Chris Grayling: Well, it reinforces
my view that the reason this happened was that it would have been
politically embarrassing for him to actually give a full explanation
in response to my question. In a sense, it amplifies my concern
about the personal statement because the personal statement is
not consistent with this. In the personal statement, he says,
"It was an inadvertent error. I didn't really think discussions
were taking place in the true sense of the word `discussions'".
Here he is saying, "I can't remember the motive behind it",
and then, "In the context of a select committee hearing,
there are other reasons but they are—none of them are acceptable,
I would accept that", and again I do not think those two
pieces of evidence are quite consistent with each other. I think
what he said to the court is entirely consistent with the situation
where you have a Government Minister who has been quietly pursuing
a strategy to mount a major change in policy, who does not want
that work to be made public, who was asked a difficult question
about it in a select committee and decides not to give a truthful
answer, and that is my belief as to what happened.
Q38 Dr Whitehead: What I would like
to do is just clarify in my mind the sequence of fault, as it
were, around question 857 and moving on from that to Miss McIntosh's
questions in the Committee subsequent to your question. You said
you were astonished by the answer and at that point your questioning
finishes. Miss McIntosh then takes up a series of questions which
in some ways go down the same route about who had meetings with
whom at what stage. Normally there is the possibility in a select
committee to come back to something a Member has questioned about
and say, "Could you give us a written statement on that or
could you come back to the Committee on that?", and this
did not happen. Was it in your mind to do that?
Chris Grayling: I think, to give
the context, this was not the only issue of doubt, so when I said
I was astonished by his reply, it was not that this was the one
thing in all the evidence that did not stack up. I think in the
questioning of a number of witnesses over a period of time, some
members of the Committee had reached the conclusion that there
had been a lot of pre-work done prior to the Government going
public and admitting to having done things over the future of
Railtrack. One example was the timetable for the drafting of the
piece of legislation that would have removed the power from the
Rail Regulator. It looked pretty clear that it had been worked
on quite some considerable time before the threat was made to
the Rail Regulator, so we questioned about that. We questioned
about some of the evidence given in relation to the appointment
of advisers. From memory, I think the Government admitted only
to having appointed advisers to any significant degree in late
August, and again it felt like they might have done that earlier.
This was only one of a number of examples where it seemed as if
the Government had been doing things earlier which prompted some
of the continued questioning. Therefore, what you should not look
at this statement as being is the kind of one light-bulb moment
in the whole process of giving evidence. It was part of a jigsaw
puzzle of building information that apparently, and it subsequently
proved to be the case, the Government had been doing work quite
extensively significantly before it admitted the various stages
of having actually done so. I think in terms of the meeting, I
would have kind of sat back and said, "That's funny",
and kind of thought about it, but not instantly gone back on the
attack. As I say, I will check back for Angela Browning, but I
would be surprised if I did not ask in written questions at the
time because I asked a very large number of them, but that would
be the explanation. This was not the decisive piece of evidence
in a big mass of evidence; it was one part of a jigsaw puzzle
really.
Dr Whitehead: Before I finish, Chairman,
I think for Mr Grayling's benefit, I should repeat the declaration
I made at the beginning of our deliberations which is that I was
a junior Minister in the Department of Transport, Local Government
and the Regions at the relevant time, but I had no concerns with
any matters relating to transport and to Railtrack.
Q39 Mr Dismore: I would like to pick
up a couple of points arising out of Mr Harvey's questions. You
said that the answer to the "we" question was that you
worked with Anne McIntosh. Did you have a pre-meeting before the
Select Committee?
Chris Grayling: No.
14 E-mails to the Clerk from Chris Grayling MP: Back
15
Flag 5 [not printed] to Memoranda from the Department of Transport
[Appendix 7]. Back
16
Mr Justice Lindsay's Approved Judgement in Weir and Others v
The Secretary of State for Transport and others, 14 October 2005,
pp 68. Back
17
Mr Justice Lindsay's Approved Judgement in Weir and Others v
The Secretary of State for Transport and others, 14 October 2005,
pp 68. Back
|
