Mr Guckian SIU
ཎྞཾ
RESTRICTED
From:
Date:
Sir David Gillmore
4 August 1993
CC:
Sir J Coles
Sir T Daunt
Mr Elliott
Mr Lever
Sir M Burton o/r Mr Mingay
Mr Nixon, MED
Mr Thomson, PRU、 Mr Donnelly, NPDD Mr Dougal,
Joint Directorate
x
SCOTT INQUIRY: LORD HOWE
1. Lord Howe has been in touch with me on a number of occasions about the Scott Inquiry. He is due to give evidence, I think, in early January 1994. He called me again last week to raise two points.
2. The first related to answers given by Ministers to parliamentary questions. He said that he thought that evidence given to the Inquiry about PQS (I cannot remember by whom) would have given Scott a wrong impression about the nature of ministerial responsibilities. Ministerial replies
from whatever party was in power were often tightly constrained by the need to protect wider British interests. Every effort was made to ensure both that nothing was said that was not the truth and that the House of Commons was not misled. But this was not the same as full disclosure of all details relevant to any question. There were often good and justifiable grounds for reticence in order to protect British interests, be they economic, commercial, political or intelligence. He said that he thought that in his own evidence and perhaps in the evidence of others now called to appear before the Inquiry this point should be put across with force.
I
3. I spoke subsequently to Sir Robin Butler about this. explained that since the Inquiry was established I had been at great pains to abide by the rules established by Lord Justice Scott. In particular I had deliberately avoided any formal consultation within the FCO between officials called to give evidence. As I understood the rules, Scott himself had insisted that witnesses should give evidence as independent persons. He had, for example, specifically asked
RESTRICTED
.../that