Formal Minutes
Wednesday 14 March 2012
Members present:
Mr Bernard Jenkin, in the Chair
| Paul Flynn
Robert Halfon
David Heyes
| | Kelvin Hopkins
Priti Patel
Lindsay Roy
|
Draft Report (The Prime Minister's adviser on Ministers' interests:
independent or not?), proposed by the Chair, brought up and
read.
Draft Report (The Prime Minister's adviser on
Ministers' interests), proposed by Paul Flynn, brought up
and read as follows:
1. Further investigations are essential into the
allegations arising out of the Fox-Werritty affair. The conclusion
to be drawn by the evidence of Sir Philip Mawer and Sir Christopher
Kelly is that the Prime Minister may have broken the Ministerial
code in not calling for the only enforcer of the code to undertake
the investigation. There is powerful evidence that using Sir
Gus O'Donnell to carry out the swift investigation was a decision
taken to hide the whole truth in order to satisfy political expediency
and avoid political embarrassment to the Coalition. The Ministerial
Code clearly restricts the role of investigation of breaches in
the Ministerial Code to the Independent Adviser.
2. Establishing the role of the Independent Adviser
is a reform that is the culmination of continuous work by this
Committee and others since 1999. It has been used once in Shahid
Malik's case and ab-used once in this case. The value of this
reform is now under threat because of the Prime Minister's failure
to instigate a full investigation without a restrictive timetable.
3. The issue under consideration is not a trivial
one. It is claimed that the former Secretary of State for Defence
was operating a private defence policy under the influence of
Adam Werritty who was himself under the influence of his paymasters
from right wing neo-con groups in the United States. Liam Fox
was conducting a policy on Sri Lanka which was not entirely in
accord with government policy: it is possible that he may have
been conducting a policy with Israel which was also not in accord
with government policy. If that allegation proves to be true it
could well lead to an acceleration of a process in which Britain
could stumble to an avoidable war with Iran. That could lead to
similar dire consequences to those of the wars in Iraq and Helmand
which lead to the deaths of 179 and 404 British soldiers. The
past Secretary of State should not be allowed to escape a full
investigation because of his resignation. These matters are of
such importance to the nation and the conduct of future ministers
that they require, not the botched brief probe conducted by Sir
Gus O'Donnell, but a full thorough analysis and judgement of the
alleged conduct of the past Secretary of State for Defence and
its possible consequences.
4. The extraordinary events surrounding the resignation
of Sir Philip Mawer and the unannounced appointment of his successor
require explanation. Paul Flynn wrote a letter to Sir Philip and
was surprised to receive a reply from Sir Alex Allen. It may be
unprecedented for a change of role to take place with such extraordinary
secrecy and subterfuge. It's a reasonable conclusion that the
Government intention was to conceal the resignation and the new
appointment to avoid unfavourable publicity.
5. The matters that still remain for further investigation
are:
- The alleged breach of the Ministerial Code by
the Prime Minister
- A full legitimate investigation into the alleged
conduct of Liam Fox and Adam Werritty without the time constraints
imposed on the Sir Gus O'Donnell report
- Revival of PASCs previous plea for the Independent
Adviser to be appointed only after the pre-appointment hearing
- The need to ensure that no further investigation
is restricted in scope and duration by the resignation of the
accused party.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chair's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The
Chair.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out "Chair's draft
Report" and insert "draft Report proposed by Paul Flynn".—(Paul
Flynn)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 2
Paul Flynn
Kelvin Hopkins
| | Noes, 4
Robert Halfon
David Heyes
Priti Patel
Lindsay Roy
|
Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from "That"
to the end of the Question and add "this Committee declines
to read the draft Report a second time because its conclusions
are defective with several omissions, as a result of the lack
of a convincing response to the claim that Sir Gus O'Donnell's
report commented on only two meetings between Liam Fox, Adam Werritty
and unspecified Israelis and not the five that took place, the
lack of a Committee investigation into the role of the Permanent
Secretary Ursula Brennan in failing to report to higher authority
the internal concerns in the Defence department, and the Committee's
failure to call Liam Fox, Adam Werritty and Ursula Brennan to
supply what could have been illuminating evidence under cross-examination;
and notes that while a Select Committee cannot conduct an investigation
to rival that of the Independent Adviser, the value of the Committee's
conclusion would have been strengthened by information from the
those principally involved in an alleged suppression of the truth
of the conduct of Liam Fox." instead thereof.—(Paul
Flynn)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 2
Paul Flynn
Kelvin Hopkins
| | Noes, 3
Robert Halfon
Priti Patel
Lindsay Roy
|
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chair's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 63 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report
be the Twenty Second Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair
make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the
House for printing with the Report.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 20 March at 4.00 pm
| 
