APPENDIX 2: MEMORANDUM FROM MR ALAN DUNCAN
MP [BYERS.6]
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from Mr Alan
Duncan MP
Inquiry into the Rt Hon member for Tyneside North
Following my exchange of letters with the Chairman,[116]
I attach my written evidence for the Committee to consider.
I contend that not only was the evidence given by
Mr Byers to the Transport Sub-Committee knowingly inaccurate,
but that his personal statement repeated, and therefore compounded,
the same untruth.
I believe that the minutes of the two meetings I
enclose show explicitly that a possible change in the status of
Railtrack was discussed well before 25 July 2001.[117]
The witness of Mr Tom Winsor, the former Rail Regulator,
who was the main interlocutor with the then Secretary of State
on the 19 June meeting, may prove critical to the Committee's
inquiry. I understand he would be prepared to confirm these facts
if the Committee were to call him for interview.
I am prepared to assist the Committee in any way
that might prove helpful.
2 November 2005
Written evidence to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges from Alan Duncan MP
I believe that the witness of the Rt Hon Member for
Tyneside North to the Transport Sub-Committee on 14 November 2001
was untrue, and that he knew it to be so at the time.
I also believe that the personal statement of the
Rt Hon Member to the House of Commons on 17 October was deliberately
misleading, and instead of exonerating him through apology or
convincing explanation, actually compounded his guilt.
At the Transport Sub-Committee, Mr Byers was asked:
'Was there any discussion, theoretical or otherwise,
in your Department before 25 July about the possibility of a future
change in status for Railtrack, whether nationalisation, the move
into a company limited by guarantee, or whatever?'
Mr Byers answered:
'Not that I am aware of.'
Subsequently, in court on 14 July 2005, Mr Byers
was challenged over the accuracy of this reply and stated:
'It is true that there was work going on, so,
yes, that was untrue' and 'I accept this is not an accurate statement';
and 'it is not a truthful statement'.
Mr Byers maintains that he gave his answer to the
Transport Sub-Committee truthfully at the time because he had
not had any discussions before 25 July 2001 about any possible
change in the status of Railtrack. He said that he had only commissioned
an options paper on the company's future. He has subsequently
told the House of Commons that this 'did not represent discussions
in the true meaning of that word'.
During and since the court case further documentary
evidence of what I believe to be Mr Byers' mendacity has been
released. These meetings show that Mr Byers played an active part
in 'discussions' over the future status of Railtrack—in
the plainest and ordinary sense of the word—well before
25 July 2001.
1. Meeting with Rail Regulator on 19 June 2001
Stephen Byers discussed the future of Railtrack with
Tom Winsor, the independent Rail Regulator on 19 June 2001, over
a month before he claimed to Mr Grayling that discussions began.
This meeting discussed the possibility of Railtrack going bust
or alternatively being taken over, and clearly constituted a discussion
in his Department of a change in Railtrack's status.
I am submitting to the Committee a copy of the official
departmental handwritten minutes from this meeting.[118]
Also present were Sir Richard Mottram (Permanent
Secretary, DTLR, at the time), David Rowlands (then Deputy Secretary,
DTLR), Bob Linnard (then Under Secretary, DTLR) and Dan Corry
(Byers' special adviser).
You will see from the minutes that the following
were under discussion:
- Page 4—'Major structural
change' is recorded as having been discussed with Mr Byers.
- Page 8—'2 things poss[ible]—1) takeover
2) RT fail' is also recorded.
The evidence from Mr Tom Winsor may shed further
light on what was discussed at this meeting and by whom, but irrespective
of who raised these issues it is clear that structural changes
were under discussion in June 2001.
2. 'Stocktake' with the Prime Minister on 5 July
2001[119]
Mr Byers has admitted in Court that there was a 'Stocktake'
meeting on 5 July 2001. It was put to him in the High Court that
'The status of the options for Railtrack's future status were
discussed at the Stocktake on 5 July with the Prime Minister?'
to which Mr Byers replied 'It was'.
I have included the minutes of this meeting which
record Mr Byers actively participating in this meeting, as well
as a preparatory note prepared for the Prime Minister from Stephen
Byers.[120] Several
other officials from Mr Byers' department were also in attendance
(such as John Spellar, Lord MacDonald, Sir Richard Mottram and
Dan Corry).
Preparatory Note[121]
The preparatory note for this meeting refers to the
3 July 2001 and it would appear that the date of the Stocktake
meeting slipped a couple of days. The note is from Stephen Byers
to the Prime Minister.
- Page two of this document shows
Mr Byers considering a 'move to a radical alternative' for Railtrack.
- Mr Byers wrote on Page 3 of this document: 'The
work my officials have started with Treasury and No. 10 on Railtrack
may throw up longer term structural issues'.
Handwritten Minutes of the Meeting[122]
The handwritten minutes of this meeting show that
'discussions' of a detailed nature about the future status of
Railtrack were ongoing and Stephen Byers was an active participant
in these discussions.
The following comments were recorded as having been
made at this meeting:
Page 2—SB [Stephen Byers]: 'RT will need to
change'
Page 3—SV [Shriti Vadera]: 'Needs [undecipherable]
capitalisation & risk transfer—then left to sink or
swim in market place'
Page 4—JS [John Spellar]: 'React to bankruptcy'
Page 4—SV [Shriti Vadera]: 'Other companies
won't come in to take over as long as [undecipherable] there'
Page 5—TB [Tony Blair]: 'Issue of struct[ure]
important, but not tip over edge'.
Page 6—SV [Shriti Vadera]: 'Sometimes need
lack of public confide[ence] to effect change. Incentives vs structure.
Proper risk & look at capitalisation of RT. May be other co[mpanies]
prepared to look at RT'
Page 6—RMott [Richard Mottram]: 'others might
take it over'.
Note to the Prime Minister further to this Meeting
(attached to these notes).[123]
The typewritten meeting note from No. 10 Downing
Street entitled 'Transport Stocktake' also makes it clear that
Stephen Byers discussed Railtrack with the Prime Minister on 5th
July 2001.
- Shriti Vadera is recorded as
saying 'more radical changes to the structure of the company needed
to be considered as a matter of urgency'.
- Stephen Byers is recorded as saying 'there was
a need to consider all of the options'.
Mr Byers' Statement to Parliament
Mr Byers made the following statement to Parliament
on 17 October 2005:
'On coming into office after the 2001 general
election, I received a wide range of briefing papers covering
all aspects of my Department's responsibilities. A number of these
papers related to the railways. As a consequence, I asked for
an options paper on the future of Railtrack to be drawn up. Initially,
this was to be done solely by my Department but subsequently I
asked that it be carried out jointly with the No. 10 policy directorate
and the Treasury. At the time, I regarded the commissioning of
this work as simply sensible contingency planning. However, it
is my request for this work to be carried out that I now recognise
could be interpreted as a discussion, and that would make my reply
to the Select Committee factually inaccurate. …
Since the court hearing, I have thought long
and hard about why I gave the answer that I did to the Select
Committee. Having reviewed the documents that were put before
the court, it would have been because I considered the meeting
of 25 July to be the moment at which discussions began and that
the commissioning of work to be carried out on the future options
for Railtrack did not represent discussions in the true meaning
of that word.'
I believe this statement to be plainly misleading.
Mr Byers states that in the three months between the end of the
court case and 17 October 2005, he has 'reviewed the documents
that were put before the court'. We must assume that these included
the minutes of 19 June and 5 July 2001 meetings, yet he fails
to mention them. Instead, he seeks to give the House the impression
that all he did before 25 July 2001 was commission a briefing
paper. This is simply not true. Instead, he took part in at least
two substantive and minuted discussions about the future status
of Railtrack in which it was expressly stated that possible bankruptcy,
takeover and a change to the fundamental status of Railtrack were
under consideration.
Irrespective of Mr Byers' view over who raised these
issues, it appears to me an indisputable fact that discussions
were ongoing before 25 July and that these took place in the presence
of Mr Byers. The fact that he gave the answer 'not that I am aware
of' on 14 November 2001 was, I believe, a deliberate attempt to
mislead Parliament. So therefore was his subsequent personal statement.
I believe this submission constitutes compelling
evidence that Mr Byers misled the House on two occasions.
2 November 2005
116 Not printed. Back
117
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda) Back
118
Not published (see list of unpublished memoranda) Back
119
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda). Back
120
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda). Back
121
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda). Back
122
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda). Back
123
Not printed (see list of unpublished memoranda). Back
| 
