APPENDIX 3: MEMORANDUM FROM MRS GWYNETH
DUNWOODY MP [BYERS.7]
Letter to the Clerk from the Hon Gwyneth Dunwoody
MP, Chairman of the Transport Committee
Thank you for your letter of 26 October inviting
me to write to the Committee on Standards and Privileges about
the evidence given by the Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, then Secretary
of State for Transport, on 14 November 2001 to the Transport Sub-committee
of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the
Regions which I chaired.
The changes to the UK railway over recent years have
been amongst the most significant developments in the transport
of this country. Changes are continuing, but in 2001 the state
of the railway was critical, and the Transport Sub-committee undertook
its inquiry into Passenger Rail Franchising and the Future of
Railway Infrastructure with the fragility of the network's management
firmly in mind. This was a very important inquiry. We took evidence
from a large number of witnesses, and none was more important
to our work than Mr Byers. It was to Mr Byers' evidence that we
looked for an authoritative, truthful and complete account of
the events leading to Railtrack's being placed into administration,
and other relevant matters.
It has become clear recently that the reliance which
the Sub-committee reposed in Mr Byers to provide it with factually
accurate answers to all the questions we posed was, sadly, misplaced.
Mr Byers wrote to me on 17 October apologising for giving factually
inaccurate evidence to the Sub-committee.[124]
I am outraged by what has happened as a most serious
breach of our rules. When those who give evidence to select committees
of the House of Commons fail to do so accurately, for whatever
reason, a vital aspect of the process of Parliamentary scrutiny
of Government is undermined. In that situation, I have no doubt
that the people of this country, who trust Parliament's scrutiny
processes to ensure that the government of the United Kingdom
is conducted to the highest standards of probity will consider
themselves to have been let down.
We are entitled to expect from those who give evidence
to select committees of the House conduct which is in accordance
with the highest standards of integrity. These standards are not
difficult to understand, or to apply. Witnesses must prepare themselves
carefully for their appearance and answer the questions they are
asked as completely and truthfully as possible. Exceptionally,
where they are unable to provide answers to questions at once,
they must say so clearly and then supply the information sought
as quickly as possible thereafter. Where they inadvertently mislead
a committee, they must correct the record as quickly as possible.
To no one does this straightforward process apply
more stringently than to senior members of the Government. The
responsibilities entailed in a major office of State cannot be
carried out properly in the absence of great personal capacities.
It saddens me greatly, therefore, that it was the then Secretary
of State for Transport who, when put to the test, failed dismally
to live up to the standard of Parliamentary behaviour of which
he should have been a foremost guardian. The message must go out
from Parliament that this behaviour will not be tolerated, and
we must ensure that there is no repetition of this disgraceful
affair.
I hope that this is helpful to your committee.
2 November 2005
124 Not reported. Back
| 
