Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Sixth Report


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 31 January 2006