| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time. I call Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.
6.20 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): One of the strengths of English criminal law is the jury system. That is true not just for the reasons that are normally presented but because—just occasionally—a jury ignores the judge's careful explanation of the law and delivers a legally quixotic verdict. In such instances, a jury seems to be saying, "You want us to deliver a verdict on the basis of the law, but we are going to deliver one on the basis of justice."
I accept that Lord Hutton is an honourable and very able man, but, unsurprisingly, he thinks like a lawyer. He sat without the benefit of a jury or even lay assessors. He determined the terms of reference and the scope of his inquiry. In each of the judgments that he arrived at, he decided that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Government. He may well have been right in law to find that, if a matter could not be proven, then the Government—as the defendant—had to be judged innocent. I am less sure that his judgment was balanced or just.
We know that Alastair Campbell is celebrated for his forceful personality and his ability to persuade reluctant officials to bend to his masters' will, and also that the language in the September dossier implied greater certainty than the intelligence services had originally proposed. We have seen—too often—that the Prime Minister, although not departing from the truth, sometimes leaves an impression that is erroneous. The reference to 45 minutes in the September dossier was taken by many to refer to long-range weapons. Other respected commentators expressed doubts that were similar to those voiced, over-trenchantly, by Mr. Gilligan.
As far back as 19 September 2002, the dossier's impact was being stiffened up. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, e-mailed John Scarlett to say that the statement on page 19 of the draft dossier regarding Saddam's possible use of biological and chemical weapons was
- "a bit of a problem. It backs up the . . . argument that there is no chemical and biological weapons threat and will only create one if we attack him. I think you should redraft the para."
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to listen to my hon. Friend, but should not those on the Government Front Bench show respect to the House and listen to him too?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We are now wasting time.
Mr. Sayeed: I believe in public service broadcasting, and that a public service broadcaster has a duty to inform and explain. I do not believe that such broadcasting should be a forum for arrogant commentators to parade their egos, vent their prejudices or ignore normal reporting safeguards or balance.
In its wish to embarrass the Government over the war, the BBC disregarded proper journalistic propriety. Although the essence of what Andrew Gilligan said was correct, he was guilty of "sexing up" his dossier.
The Prime Minister told us first that the need for war was because Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda. He then told us that it was because we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction and, finally, on 12 February he justified his stance by introducing the concept of a moral war.
Lord Hutton's self-denying ordinance stopped him investigating the twists and turns of the Prime Minister's reasoning. I regret to say that Lord Hutton's exoneration of the Government was always possible, given the lack of absolute evidence to the contrary and his self-imposed terms of inquiry.
I end on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have run out of time.
Peter Bradley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the second sitting day of the last six
during which I have spent a total of 13 hours in the Chamber in the vain hope that I might be called to speak. My grievance is not that I have not been called—I do not suggest that I should have been preferred to any other Member—but I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers to review the ordinance that Members may not approach the Chair to ascertain whether they are likely to be called in debate. Surely we are grown-up adults and we should be entitled—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I take on board the point that he is making. We are now wasting even more time.
6.25 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): This has without doubt been a very good debate. I do not know whether that was, in part, due to the short interruption of our proceedings or whether it would have happened of itself, but there seems to be no doubt that this afternoon we have highlighted the absolute necessity of conducting debate in a rational and courteous manner. As a result, the contributions of every Member seem to have matched the seriousness of the matters that we have to consider. Indeed, listening to what was said has made me happy and proud to be a Member of the House.
The debate has concentrated principally on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I shall deal with those contributions first, and I then hope to be able to deal further with some of the points that, curiously, have not been touched on, even though they are important in the context of the report, especially to the Kelly family.
The most startling piece of information about weapons of mass destruction to emerge during the debate was that the Prime Minister indicated, in response to a question, that he was not aware that WMD referred to battlefield weapons before the debate on 18 March last year. That is an extremely important comment. By removing the taint of mendacity from Ministers, Lord Hutton has done the House the great service of enabling us to concentrate on issues of competence—a central area that the House may want to consider this evening, and one that will doubtless be the subject of the inquiry's scrutiny.
At this stage, however, I have a question for the Secretary of State for Defence. If that was indeed the Prime Minister's position on 18 March, it is obviously in conflict with position enunciated by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made his opinions crystal clear. He said:
- "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 727.]
- "Was there any other suggestion that they were not battlefield munitions but strategic munitions?"
- "I recall asking what kind of weapons would be deployable within 45 minutes; and the answer is the answer that I have just given to you."
- "Which was shells, battlefield mortars, tactical weapons of that kind?"
When the Secretary of State winds up, will he explain the discrepancy between his position and that of the Prime Minister? Could it be that in fact the Secretary of State knew on 18 March that the reference was only to battlefield weapons, but that he had not told the Prime Minister? If that is the case, it seems to me that the House is entitled to know how that divergence of view came about. I hope that that will be the first thing that the Secretary of State for Defence addresses when he rises at the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate.
In addition, we heard many contributions relating to the wider WMD issues. I apologise for the fact that I cannot do justice to all of them in the time available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) asked about the Law Officers' advice. I am perfectly aware of the convention that Law Officers' advice is not normally made public, but I ask whether that could be reviewed in this case. Frankly, if it comes out in dribs and drabs during the committee's inquiry, it would be much better if the Government were up front about it, even if they have to carry out some redaction of any part of it that might raise intelligence issues. In the Hutton report, the redacted pages are so poorly done that people can read what is said underneath anyway, which does not suggest that the material was of the highest confidentiality.
In addition, we heard all the doubts expressed about the dossier, and there is no doubt that that will be an important area to consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an extremely powerful contribution on that point, as did my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). The absolutely central issue remains that the Government have got to provide reassurance that the terms of reference that they have set out for the committee's inquiry are fully understood and accepted across the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition insisted on changes to the text specifically to include reference to the use made by the Government of intelligence before the conflict and the difference between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq survey group. I have to tell the Secretary of State for Defence that I was alarmed yesterday that the Foreign Secretary appeared to try to slip away from the clear implications of that text, which must be that the use made by the Government of the intelligence in persuading the British people that it was right to go to war must be a subject of examination. I very much hope that he, or the Prime Minister, will provide that reassurance before this afternoon's debate is out; otherwise it will be suggested that those of us who wish to co-operate to uphold the integrity of the Government are signing up to a false prospectus. We are entitled to a reply to that during the debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |