Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "conclusions" to insert the words "and this leads inevitably to the thought of a cover-up."—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Other Amendments made.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "government." to insert the words "We must be critical of the stance taken by the Foreign Secretary on this matter."—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 107).

Paragraph 106 (now paragraph 108) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 107 read as follows:

We assert our right, when the circumstances warrant it, to take evidence from the SIS when relevant to a specific inquiry being carried out within our remit from the House. The SIS is, in our view, an associated public body of the FCO, within the meaning of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.152. In this context, it is worth quoting from a 1983 report from the Liaison Committee. That Committee concluded as follows:

"One Government activity which already falls within the ambit of the departmental select committees is the work of the security services, and the question of their accountability to Parliament arises from time to time. The arguments against a wide parliamentary discussion of these matters are well known, and have led the committees concerned to refrain from inquiries in this field. On the other hand expenditure of public monies on a large scale should not go wholly unexamined, especially when an examination could be a spur to efficiency. Nor should it be overlooked that the security services, who are frequently criticised in the House, have not in the past had any parliamentary opportunity of putting the record straight. With such a strong case on each side of the question, one thing is clear: the House, having given to the committees a wide and unambiguous duty of overseeing all the functions of the departments, has at present left them in each case to decide for themselves where the balance of the argument lies, and so whether or not to inquire into these matters."

We agree with this view. Although the ISC has come into existence since 1983, that Committee (which we welcome, and whose membership we respect) is not an adequate substitute for the departmental select committees. It is appointed by the Executive and not the House; it reports to the Prime Minister not the House, and its secretariat are civil servants, responsible to Government not Parliament. We note also that the then Foreign Secretary assured the House that the ISC would not "truncate in any way the existing responsibilities of existing committees." Nor does the fact that intelligence can now be debated on the floor of the House mean that select committee inquiries are otiose. We shall be asking the Liaison Committee to examine this whole issue again in view of its relevance to a number of other departmental Select Committees and to the Committee of Public Accounts. In the meantime, we recommend that the Government reflect, in any future inquiry like that into Sandline, as to the merit of a more mature attitude towards controlled access for the Foreign Affairs Committee to appropriate intelligence material and to witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service.

Amendment proposed, in line 36, to leave out the word "reflect" and to insert the words "should not obstruct the Committee."—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 109).

Another paragraph—(Sir John Stanley)—brought up and read, as follows:

In our terms of reference we said that we would examine whether:


-  actions by Government personnel in relation to Sierra Leone after 25 May 1997 were consistent with implementation of the Government's policy that the restoration of President Kabbah should be pursued by peaceful means; and


-  deficiencies have been revealed in the arrangement in the FCO for passing information to Ministers and implementing their instructions.


On the first of these questions, it is clear that a debate was taking place inside the FCO at official level about the possible use of force and of the threat of force. It is perfectly proper and necessary for officials to debate policy issues prior to putting policy submissions to Ministers. We have not found any officials taking action inconsistent with the Government's policy of restoring President Kabbah by peaceful means. On the second question, our inquiry has revealed very serious, and indeed alarming, deficiencies by officials at various levels in passing important information to Ministers. In addition in one key area Ministers and senior officials failed to communicate ministerial policy fully, and therefore, accurately. As far as officials are concerned, whilst we agree that Mr Penfold failed to communicate upwards some highly significant information as quickly, efficiently and clearly as he should, his shortcomings in this respect were no greater, and arguably less, than those of Ms Grant, Mr Dales and the Permanent Secretary Sir John Kerr. We consider it was wrong therefore for the Foreign Secretary to have singled out Mr Penfold alone for public reprimand when he made his Statement to the House on July 27 following publication of the Legg report.[FN: Hansard 27 July 1998 Col. 20.] As far as Ministers are concerned, we conclude, in agreement with Legg, that both the Foreign Secretary and Mr Lloyd were clear that their policy goal was "drying up arms supplies to all parties in Sierra Leone."[FN: Written Answer 16 June 1998 Col. 199.] However we also conclude that Ministers, together with officials, made a serious error of judgement in consistently describing the arms embargo, inside and outside the FCO, to Parliament and to the Press, as an embargo on the Junta when it actually applied to all the parties in the Sierra Leone conflict. As we have seen this misjudgement lay at the root of the so-called 'arms to Africa' affair and had serious consequences for the Department and for the Government. We welcome the fact that the lesson of this error appears to have been learnt; this is shown in the careful and complete description of the amended Sierra Leone arms embargo given by Mr Lloyd on 16 June 1998[Written Answer 16 June 1998 Col. 199.] in marked contrast to the incomplete description given to the earlier embargo.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph 108 read, as follows:

The terms of reference of our inquiry included two questions: whether actions by government personnel was consistent with the policy of restoration of President Kabbah by peaceful means, and whether there were deficiencies in passing information to Ministers and implementing their instructions. On the first of these questions, it is clear that a debate was taking place inside Government about the possible use of force. That was entirely proper and should be distinguished from any covert support for the use of force. Of the latter, we can find no evidence, except in the support which was given to Mr Spicer by Mr Penfold and to a lesser degree by some officials in London. In Mr Penfold's case, we believe that the support for Mr Spicer's endeavours was open, but based on ignorance, arising in part from unprofessionalism or inefficiency, rather than a deliberate wish to subvert government policy. In the case of other officials, Mr Spicer was able to place them in a position where their own version of events would not have been able to sustain the burden of criminal proof had Mr Spicer been brought to trial. As far as Ministers were concerned, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that they deliberately misled Parliament. We therefore agree with the Foreign Secretary that there was no conspiracy on the part of officials to undermine ministerial policy, nor was there any connivance by Ministers with a policy different from the one they announced to Parliament.

Amendment proposed, in line 21, after the word "Parliament." to insert the words-

"although some may consider that Ministers who had responsibilities for dealing with Sierra Leone in Parliament had enough external evidence to have asked more questions and to have made greater enquiries of their officials in AD(E). If that had happened much of the future fiasco might have been avoided."—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph disagreed to.

Paragraph 109 read, as follows:

The Foreign Secretary went on to say "there were misjudgements, there were errors and failures of communication, but there was no conspiracy." The sorry tale of those misjudgements, errors and failures has shown major deficiencies in the FCO in passing information to Ministers and in implementing their instructions. Among these failures, we identify in particular the failure to make clear the policy that the arms embargo applied to all parties in Sierra Leone; the lack of adequate support for Mr Penfold when he was acting from Conakry, and information and assistance for him when he was in London; the failure by Mr Penfold to communicate important information to his colleagues in London; the failure by officials in AD(E) to deal properly with information they received and to report upwards inside the FCO; the failure by senior management to warn Ministers; the failure to communicate as rapidly and directly as possible with Customs and Excise, and the failure to handle intelligence information properly. All of these we address in this report.

Amendment proposed, in lines 6 to 14, to place the eight failures in a vertical list and to number them.—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Paragraph 110 read, as follows:

Our inquiry has given a unique insight into the working, or lack of working in this case, of the FCO machine. It has exposed even further a story which the FCO would have preferred not to have besmirched its reputation. It has been an uncomfortable period for the Department. We hope that the experience will have been therapeutic. As the Permanent Secretary put it:

"The revelation of this mess, which is not a pretty sight, has not been a very enjoyable experience. I think that those concerned will not make these mistakes again. I think that the office as a whole will perform better, given that it has learned from some really rather serious mistakes that it made. That is the point."

An Amendment made.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "therapeutic" to insert the words "it has not been pleasing for the Committee. But,"—(Sir Peter Emery.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph 111 read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(The Chairman)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and added (now paragraph 112).

Annexes agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report, as amended, be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

The Committee divided.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Several Papers were ordered to be reported to the House.