Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1300-1319)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR PETER
RICKETTS, CMG AND
MR WILLIAM
EHRMAN, CMG
27 JUNE 2003
Q1300 Chairman: Let me just confer
with colleagues and openly with you on this. It is a question
now of whether we stop at each point. You have got a whole series
of matters of that nature that you are going to put to the Committee,
have you?
Mr Straw: That is really the whole
basis on which the dossier was prepared as far as that point is
concerned. I would also say to you, Chairman, and I know that
you do not like me saying this and I do not want to start an argument
here, the ISC is there and we have to respect that. *** we have
dealt with all this and it is not—apart from the fact that
I tell the truth unembroidered and so, of course, do officials,
your insurance here is if for some mad reason I am not telling
the truth, the ISC will have full access to your transcript, I
hope, and to all the documents we are going to go through and
will be saying, "Hang on a second, what Straw said is wrong"
and they will be able to look through a lot of the background.
Q1301 Chairman: That is the key point
that you want to make to us at this stage?
Mr Straw: By the way, I think
we have also got most of the answer to Sir John's question.
Q1302 Chairman: On the munitions
or the missiles?
Mr Straw: About yellow cake and
Niger.
Chairman: Shall we deal with that first?
Q1303 Mr Maples: In quoting that
point you said "munitions", so very specifically I take
munitions to mean weapons other than missiles, things that are
fired from artillery. Was that the sense in which it was used
or was it more general than that?
Mr Ehrman: It could be from a
variety of ways. It could be artillery. It could be bombs.
Q1304 Mr Maples: Could it be short-range
missiles?
Mr Ehrman: It could be short-range
missiles. It includes the lot.
Q1305 Mr Maples: So you see it as
meaning the same as "weapons"?
Mr Ehrman: It is a generic word,
"munitions".
Q1306 Mr Maples: You do not draw
a distinction between "munitions" and "weapons"?
Mr Straw: I was going to ask Mr
Ricketts and Mr Ehrman to give you some more detail about the
source as well.
Mr Pope: That is what I wanted to ask.
I wanted to ask about the source and which agency received the
material.
Mr Maples: Let us go on with that because
I think that is important. I would rather hear you than my question.
Chairman: John, I think you have asked
your question.
Mr Maples: I had something else I wanted
to ask but if Mr Ricketts is prepared to tell us about the source
of the 45 minutes, let us go straight to that.
Chairman: Greg, that was your point as
well.
Mr Pope: Which agency got the information?
Q1307 Chairman: Can we clear this
point first.
Mr Ehrman: It is quite simple.
***
Q1308 Mr Maples: In Iraq?
Mr Ehrman: Yes.
Mr Straw: Can I just say this:
our colleague, the Minister of State for Defence, Adam Ingram,
said on the radio, quite correctly, that it was a single source.
*** This man was judged to be very reliable.
Q1309 Mr Maples: *** ?
Mr Straw: ***
Q1310 Mr Illsley: How old was that
piece of information by the time British intelligence received
it? Are we talking about in the last few weeks or months before
September or could it be a year or two years?
Mr Ehrman: The information on
the 45 minutes came shortly before the JIC assessment on 9 September.
It was British intelligence.
Q1311 Mr Illsley: It is just to gauge
the age.
Mr Straw: There is a flow of reporting
from Iraq and as these reports come in they are assessed, first
of all digested by the relevant agency concerned and then they
come forward, sometimes as freestanding reports for ministers
and senior officials, sometimes it may not be appropriate to put
it that way in a formal report. It was fed pretty quickly into
the JIC process, was it not?
Mr Ehrman: It did come forward
in a formal report. It is also perhaps worth emphasising that
the reports themselves assess in almost all cases the reliability
of the source and put comments on the source and how reliable
it is thought to be.
Mr Straw: Caveats and things like
that. I made this point the other day, but it is really a very
important point, that the JIC system was set up to ensure that
people who, quite naturally, were committed to their sources,
the people in the front line, were not people also providing the
assessment on them. Quite a lot of assessment is done within the
relevant agency but even at that point it is passed on to the
JIC for assessment.
Mr Ricketts: The agencies make
an assessment of the reliability and credibility of their sources
and then the JIC puts it together with other information. This
45 minute point, although it is a striking figure, was not at
all out of the flow of our assessment of how Iraqi armed forces
were deployed and their modus operandi, so it fitted into a broader
pattern of what we knew about Iraqi armed forces.
Q1312 Mr Maples: I want to come back,
if I may, to these points that I drew your attention to as to
what I saw as the difference between the text and the Executive
Summary. In relation to the JIC assessment of 9 September you
say on page 18 of the actual document at the end of paragraph
one: "The JIC concluded that Iraq had sufficient expertise,
equipment and material to produce biological warfare agents within
weeks . . ." Are those the words that are used in the JIC
assessment? I have got three of them, so would it help for you
to find the lot?
Mr Ehrman: Yes.
Q1313 Mr Maples: The next one is
at the beginning of the next paragraph where it says: ".
. . Iraq retained some chemical warfare agents, precursors . .
. These stocks would enable Iraq to produce significant quantities
of mustard gas within weeks and of nerve agent within months."
That is page 18, paragraph two. Finally, in paragraph four: "In
the last six months the JIC has confirmed its earlier judgments
on Iraqi chemical and biological warfare capabilities and assessed
that Iraq has the means to deliver chemical and biological weapons."
It is those three points.
Mr Ehrman: All of those points
accurately reflect the 9 September JIC assessment.
Q1314 Mr Maples: Are those words
pretty much used in that?
Mr Ehrman: Yes.
Q1315 Mr Maples: What I am getting
at is in the Summary I think it is tougher.
Mr Straw: Mr Maples, you will
have seen, and you picked up, "munitions" and "weapons".
Q1316 Mr Maples: You draw no distinction
between them.
Mr Straw: I can understand the
point you are making.
Mr Maples: I do draw a distinction, for
instance, if we go back to the 45 minutes. At the end of the second
paragraph on page 19 it says: "Intelligence indicates . .
." *** In paragraph six of the Executive Summary it says:
". . . we judge that . . . some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes . . ." I would argue that is stronger.
Coming back to the other points, I am interested if the precise
wording in the body of the document on pages 18 and 19, the words
that I have quoted, is the wording that was used in that 9 September
JIC document, or was it stronger?
Q1317 Chairman: That is a key question
in terms of—
Mr Straw: However, the heading
to the sentence in paragraph six on page five of the Executive
Summary is: "As a result of the intelligence we judge . .
." ***
Q1318 Mr Maples: Okay. If I can make
my other point. It says "continued to produce chemical and
biological agents . . ." There is a slight ambiguity there.
Mr Straw: I do not mind telling
you this, that what this says is: ***
Q1319 Mr Maples: That is in the JIC
assessment?
Mr Straw: Yes.
| 
