The investigation into the Fox Werritty affair conducted speedily by the Head of the Civil Service was unsatisfactory and illegimate because the sole enforcer of the code is Sir Phillip Mawer.
It is known that Fox was conducting a policy on Sri Lanka that was independent of Government policy. Was he doing the same on Israel? Those groups who funded Werritty to the sum of £150,000 a year have a far-right agenda that could push the UK into a war with Iran. The same groups were influential in leading the UK into the disastrous war in Iraq. Bob Kerslake will soon take over his new role as Head of the Civil Service.
Q503 <Paul Flynn:> Who is the enforcer of the Ministerial Code?
Sir Bob Kerslake: The enforcer in terms of Ministers will be the Cabinet Secretary. My role would be in relation to the Civil Service Code.
Q504 <Paul Flynn:> What does Sir Philip Mawer do then?
Sir Bob Kerslake: As you know, there is a change being made there. In terms of who is the guardian of the code, it lies with the Cabinet Secretary, and clearly the successor to Sir Philip Mawer will play a key part in the case of where there are issues to be investigated.
Q505 <Paul Flynn:> It seems to say in the Ministerial Code that the sole enforcer is the holder of the office that Sir Philip Mawer holds now. No?
Sir Bob Kerslake: He clearly has a key role in terms of enforcing the code, but I thought your question was about who, between myself and the Cabinet Secretary, took that lead role. I am quite clear that, on ministerial matters, the Cabinet Secretary would be undertaking the investigation.
Q506 <Paul Flynn:> In the Fox/Werritty affair, there was evidence that civil servants from his Department had expressed their unhappiness to Liam Fox about his conduct, but did not pass that on outside the Department. Is this how they should behave?
Sir Bob Kerslake: In his review of the issues, Sir Gus made it clear that effective communication of issues arising in Departments through to the Cabinet Secretary is an important part of the system here.
Q507 <Paul Flynn:> In that particular case, and in another issue that was less important involving your Department, it was suggested that Ministers can divide themselves in two. On some occasions, they can behave privately; on other occasions, they can behave ministerially. The occasion with your Department involved the Secretary of State, who had a meal provided by Bell Pottinger, which could have been thought to be a lobbyist. The firm at the meal was seeking some favour with his Department, but he claimed that he was eating privately that night and not ministerially. There is a rather serious issue involved in the Fox/Werritty affair, where the Secretary of State, Werritty and one British official spoke to a group of Israelis who, according to The Daily Telegraph political correspondent, were Mossad, which is a matter of some interest, I would have thought, given the fact that we might be moving to a war with Iran.
<Chair:> Can we just get to a substantive question?
<Paul Flynn:> I have to give that background, I am afraid, to make sense of this. Do you think that, in the circumstances, there should not be a division between somebody eating or having meetings privately or ministerially?
Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two or three points to make on this. The first point to make is there is a distinction between an event that somebody is going to in a private capacity or in their capacity as an MP, which is different from their capacity as a Minister. As you know, the judgement on that issue ultimately lies with the Minister to make, but they very often do so with advice and discussion with their private office. There are clearly different ways in which such meetings are handled. If it is a meeting as a Minister, they will get a briefing and, very often, in most cases, someone from the private office will attend that meeting.
What I think we found in the Werritty case, if you look at the recommendations from Sir Gus, he said that, if there are meetings where substantive issues of departmental business are discussed, clearly someone from the private office should be there. At the very least, the meeting should be reported back. So I think there is a difference between the two types of meeting. What I think emerged in the Werritty review was that where a meeting occurs that palpably may have started as, or was thought to be, a private meeting but moves into departmental business, there has to be a reference back. I do not think you can drop the distinction between the two, but it needs handling with care. If you move into a different situation, you need to be aware of it.
Comments