THE Conservatives last night questioned the behaviour of the government after Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, admitted not telling the truth to MPs about the timing of discussions concerning a possible change to the status of Railtrack.
Mr Byers - who was giving evidence in the High Court yesterday in the case of Railtrack shareholders who claim he allowed the rail infrastructure to fail to avoid paying compensation - agreed that he had given an untrue answer when under parliamentary scrutiny.
Faced with evidence that his responses to the House of Commons sub-committee did not chime with the correspondence from his department, he accepted that he had not made "an accurate statement".
When it was put to him that he had deliberately misled the committee, he replied: "It was such a long time ago, I cannot remember, but it is not a truthful statement and I apologise for that. I cannot remember the motives behind it."
Keith Rowley, the shareholders' QC, said: "I suggest there was a clear strategy, developed by you and your officials, accepting that Railtrack would not immediately collapse but might fall over in a year or two, to force Railtrack into administration by ensuring you held all the cards and all other options were closed off."
Alan Duncan, the shadow transport secretary, said: He said: "If, as it seems today, Stephen Byers lied to a parliamentary committee, not only is that a disgrace in itself but it shows that their plans for Railtrack were deeply devious and could be a scandal of enormous proportions. Whatever happens in court, this issue is not going to go away."
Mr Byers has consistently denied forcing Railtrack into insolvency to avoid compensation payments but about 50,000 shareholders disagreed and have taken their case to the High Court. They are demanding pounds -157m in compensation.
The shareholders' barrister produced documentary evidence, including e-mails and notes from Department of Transport officials showing that taking Railtrack into administration had been one of the options being discussed as early as June 2001. Mr Byers had told the Commons sub-committee he was not aware of a change in Railtrack's status being discussed before July 25, 2001.
He told the court he had been under pressure during the hearing and had not set out to conceal any conspiracy or plot.
At the time, he said he had tried to "behave honourably", adding "the people that know me best know I am not a liar".
Mr Byers told the High Court the Treasury had concerns about ending Railtrack and removing the role of shareholders. He revealed that Gordon Brown had a list of 10 conditions to be met before he would agree to Railtrack being changed to a non-shareholder company. The list was internally nicknamed "The Ten Commandments", he said.
At a meeting on September 19, 2001 - three weeks before Railtrackwent into administration - Tony Blair told Mr Byers he had to talk to the chancellor if he wanted more money to fund the company. But the court heard it was left to Mr Byers to decide whether to take the company into administration - subject to the Treasury conditions - if the chancellor decided to refuse Railtrack's request for more money.
Mr Byers said he had worked with his officials to see if the Treasury conditions could be met.
But Mr Byers replied that his discussions with officials were "sensible contingency planning" in case it was decided to refuse to give the company more funds.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article