Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1340-1359)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR PETER
RICKETTS, CMG AND
MR WILLIAM
EHRMAN, CMG
27 JUNE 2003
Q1340 Mr Chidgey: No trace elements
whatever?
Mr Ehrman: There is nothing confirmed.
Q1341 Mr Pope: This is a brief point
that follows on about chemical weapons. In the 45-minute claim
what we are talking about here is artillery, for example, which
can be deployed fairly quickly, but we did hear evidence before
that it is not safe to keep the chemical elements of a missile
in the missile, they have to be assembled forward as it were.
It struck me as being quite surprising. I am sure we have come
across the delivery systems, you can find the rocket launchers
and mortars and so on, but we have not found any of the chemicals
and I wanted a confirmation of whether or not we have found the
chemicals or is it the case that the Iraq Survey Group is keeping
it to themselves to disclose it all in one go, or is it just the
case they have not found anything yet?
Mr Straw: I will ask Mr Ricketts
to answer.
Mr Ricketts: No, the Iraq Survey
Group are not keeping back a mountain of material to produce all
at one time. I have no doubt that if they were to find some physical
chemical weapons munitions that would become public pretty quickly.
Mr Illsley: I would have thought so as
well
Q1342 Mr Pope: That is not necessarily
the case. I can see why you would say that but there is also a
case for not providing a running commentary on each small discovery
that you make.
Mr Straw: Can I just say this:
the most likely evidence would come from interviews and information
provided by scientists. In their case it is highly probable that
the Survey Group will decide to hold back on any kind of running
commentary because if you do an interview with one person you
will want to measure that against what others are saying. Let
me say there is no decision of which I am aware that everything
is going to be held back to the last minute.
Mr Pope: I have got other questions,
I will come back to them.
Q1343 Richard Ottaway: It a question
you said you would rather deal with in private. Are you still
standing by the uranium statement, and what is the source?
Mr Ehrman: Yes, we certainly do
not have a problem in standing by the uranium statement. If I
can find the relevant page—We stand by the fact that the
intelligence referred to in the dossier drew on information from
more than one source and we remain confident in it. It is different
from the information which the IAEA said later on was a forgery.
Mr Ricketts: Could we follow that
up, just to go a little further in response to Sir John Stanley's
questions about the reporting.
Mr Straw: We used the coffee break
to try and find the answer.
Mr Ricketts: ***
Q1344 Andrew Mackinlay: *** ?
Mr Straw: ***
Mr Ehrman: ***
Q1345 Sir John Stanley: *** ?
Mr Ehrman: ***
Q1346 Richard Ottaway: I am happy
for them to wrap up uranium because I have got one more question.
Mr Straw: Can I say this to Sir
John, and it is on this, ***
Q1347 Richard Ottaway: This is an
unrelated question. Did at any time the Government receive reports
from intelligence agencies that Iraq was not an immediate threat?
Mr Ricketts: No, I do not recognise
that as anything we have ever seen from the intelligence agencies.
Mr Straw: We have been over the
ground about was the test an immediate threat and we have dealt
with that pretty thoroughly and the adjective "imminent"
has even been used. No one has ever suggested that there was a
threat from Iraq that they were about to start a war the next
day or the next week necessarily. That was a point made in the
House of Commons by the Prime Minister on 24 September. We tried
to present as balanced and comprehensive picture of the level
of the threat as we could and, to repeat myself, that was also
shared by the Security Council. In fact, I was, and so was Mr
Ricketts, completely immersed in negotiations on 1441 and the
idea that the other 13 countries were somehow patsies is a total
reversal of the truth. ***
Q1348 Richard Ottaway: The suggestion
is that in March 2002 a report was received that Iraq was not
an immediate threat.
Mr Ehrman: No.
Q1349 Richard Ottaway: That question
was on the radio the other day.
Mr Straw: Let me just say, do
not forget The Guardian—
Q1350 Richard Ottaway: There was
a report on the radio.
Mr Straw: I know there was a report
on the radio, but we have had to put up with all sorts of complete
nonsense. The Guardian ran a lead story saying there were
transcripts of a private and secret meeting that I had with Colin
Powell on 4 March. We have to be aware of the fact that disinformation
round here has been huge. They ran that story, we told them it
was untrue. We told them I was not with Colin Powell on 4 February
in New York, I was with Dominique de Villepan in Le Touquet on
4 February.
Q1351 Richard Ottaway: We have heard
you on that.
Mr Straw: The fact it is on the
radio or in the newspapers does not make it true.
Mr Ehrman: I think that what may
be happening is a whole of lot of stories are getting conflated.
There was a story that there was a report suppressed in March
2002 and some of the press reported it as a JIC assessment suppress;
it was not. There was a JIC assessment on the Iraqi programmes
that month and it was not suppressed, it was put up in the normal
way. There was work that was being done on a public document which
was not proceeded with and then I suppose that could got conflated
so that this showed that Iraq was not a threat, but that is not
the case.
Q1352 Mr Pope: In the September dossier
there is a reference to the al-Hussein missile which has a range
of 650 kilometres and could clearly reach our sovereign bases
in Cyprus. I am sure I was not alone in thinking that was quite
a shocking revelation, that our sovereign bases could be attacked,
possibly with a chemical weapon. Was that assessment in the original
JIC assessment? By the original JIC assessment I think I mean
the one at the end of August.
Mr Ehrman: There was not one at
the end of August, there was one on 9 September and one back in
March.
Q1353 Mr Pope: September.
Mr Ehrman: Yes, that has been
in all the JIC assessments.
Q1354 Mr Pope: Okay. At any stage
did officials complain about pressure being put on them by special
advisers or ministers or Number 10 in the drafting of these documents?
One thing we have heard is that there was widespread concern in
the intelligence community about the pressure that was put on
the people doing the drafting.
Mr Ehrman: I have spoken to John
Scarlett and he is absolutely clear that he was put in charge
and he was put in charge on the basis that nothing was going to
be published that he and the JIC were not happy with, and he is
not aware, I think he said publicly he is not aware—
Q1355 Mr Pope: People have not complained
verbally about pressure being put on them?
Mr Ehrman: No.
Mr Straw: It was a proper process.
I have received no complaints whatever. Let me say that I have
a direct relationship with the head of SIS and the head of GCHQ.
I see them regularly. I see the head of SIS much more often than
I see the head of GCHQ because it is a different operation, but
they both report to me. As far as the head of SIS is concerned,
I have seen him very regularly indeed in a variety of settings
and he is not somebody who hides his light under a bushel. He
does tell you things and what he feels about things and if there
had been any suggestion there had been pressure on his staff that
would have come to my notice through him and ditto with the JIC
people who again we were seeing, and William and Peter would be
very quickly through my door if they had felt that there was unacceptable
pressure being put on X or Y?
Q1356 Chairman: What was the response
of John Scarlett and his colleagues about the allegations that
have been made about political interference?
Mr Ricketts: He does not accept
them.
Q1357 Chairman: The printable response
is that these allegations are untrue and, of course, they not
only imply misconduct by politicians and special advisers but
they also imply a dereliction of duty by him and by his colleagues,
and neither are true.
Mr Ricketts: I entirely agree
with that, but as a supplementary point I believe that the dossier
was considered twice, on 11 and 18 September, in the full JIC,
and from my open personal knowledge of the JIC it is not a body
that would accept political interference in its judgments and
assessments.
Mr Ehrman: John Scarlett is quite
clear when he signed off that draft on 20 September it went to
the printers then and he remained in charge of it through the
printing process and he was quite happy with it.
Mr Straw: Can I make this point
about the role of this Committee and the ISC, and this is a difference
between now and 50 years ago, the level of accountability of ministers
has increased phenomenally over this kind of detail. 50 years
ago the only chamber was the House. Now we have to be conscious
all the time, and absolutely rightly (I believe in this system)
that if you do things for the wrong reasons or with inadequate
information this will come out and come out quite quickly. The
idea that we would have had in mind publishing something that
was not supportable by the best available evidence and assessment
is mad because this would be have been us entering voluntarily
into a suicide pact at a political level.
Chairman: Eric did not have any chance
in the first part of the session.
Q1358 Mr Illsley: I want to follow
on firstly to what you have just been saying. Do you completely
dismiss Gilligan's accusations? Do you think there is no intelligence
source or do you think—
Mr Straw: No, I think he has a
source. I do not know this, I am offering you my belief, not evidence,
he is somebody who obviously has *** contacts particularly with
the MoD. I think he has a source and I think he spoke to somebody,
I think that much is evident, but I do not know the nature of
the conversation. I do know that some journalists sometimes slightly
embroider what they are told.
Q1359 Mr Chidgey: A bit like politicians!
Mr Straw: I am talking about journalists.
| 
