| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Huw Irranca-Davies: Like many hon. Members, I have sat through virtually every minute of today's debate, which has been very constructive and rational. However—I say this in a genuine spirit of raising the perception of this House among the public outside—is not the one great service that the Leader of the Opposition could do to make a categorical statement that he does not doubt the honesty and integrity of this Government and the Prime Minister? That would be a great service to himself and to this House.
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly give way to the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to make such a statement. Apparently, he does not wish to do so—for the moment, at any rate.
The Ministry of Defence was criticised, and I entirely accept that criticism. Lord Hutton concluded that the Ministry of Defence was at fault for not informing
Dr. Kelly that the press office would confirm his name if a journalist suggested it. He also said that the Ministry of Defence was at fault in not having set up a procedure to inform Dr. Kelly immediately when his name had been confirmed to the press.I acknowledge that it would have been better if we had told Dr. Kelly explicitly that his name would be confirmed if a journalist suggested it and if there had been a procedure to inform him immediately when he had been identified by the press. Lord Hutton was satisfied, however, that Dr. Kelly had been told by the Ministry of Defence that his name would probably come out and that he realised this himself. With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that we probably placed too much reliance on this fact.
Lord Hutton has recognised, however, that the circumstances leading to Dr. Kelly's death were, to use his words, "wholly exceptional". Moreover, he acknowledged that there were mitigating circumstances: first, Dr Kelly's exposure to press attention, which was inevitable in any event, was only one of the factors placing him under stress; secondly, MOD officials did give consideration to Dr. Kelly's welfare and did take steps to help him; and thirdly, Dr. Kelly was not an easy man to help. This is not a criticism. He seems to have reacted in the way in which many essentially private people would react to public exposure—he wanted to keep himself to himself.
Adam Price: On the issue of accuracy, would the Secretary of State care to comment on the assertion made in the question and answer briefing approved by the permanent secretary on 8 July in response to the specific question as to what No. 10's involvement in the announcement had been? The assertion made in that briefing, which was approved by the permanent secretary, is that the decision to issue the statement was made by the MOD. Was that assertion correct?
Mr. Hoon: Lord Hutton's report deals with the issue in detail. I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me, and I will provide him with a reply setting out clearly what is said in the report. I do not think that it helps the debate to make such points at this stage.
Mr. Grieve: Coming back to the employment points, it would be helpful and reassuring to learn that the Ministry of Defence has taken on board the apparent lack of a documented system for dealing with an employee who has a problem. It worries me that that point clearly arises in the Hutton report, and I hope that we can be given some reassurance on it.
Mr. Hoon: I shall come to that point in a moment, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I need to make progress.
Dr. Kelly's subsequent exposure to press attention and intrusion was not in any way brought about by the delay in advising him that his name had been confirmed—and neither has it been suggested that this delay in any way contributed to his decision to take his
own life. It is important that I note on behalf of the Ministry of Defence that there was no criticism of any individual in relation to the support provided to Dr. Kelly.I am nevertheless determined that the Ministry of Defence should reflect on what has happened. Officials have been giving a great deal of thought to a range of personnel issues that were highlighted by, even if they were not strictly relevant to, the case of Dr. Kelly. Various procedures will be improved. Some of them will be in areas that were not addressed in the report. We shall look at terms of employment, where some aspects relating to secondments from the Ministry of Defence or between the Ministry of Defence and other public or private organisations will be clarified. Disciplinary and related procedures, including arrangements for raising issues of conscience or professional disquiet, will also be considered. I hope that that will meet the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This will cover the entire Ministry, including, of course, the Defence Intelligence Staff.
We shall examine also the assistance given to civil servants who are at risk of media attention. Nowadays there is a risk of intrusion that would not have occurred even a few years ago. As for guidance on dealing with the media, the principle will remain unchanged that no one should speak to the media on or off the record without express approval. I hope that that addresses at least some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in what I thought was an excellent speech.
Mr. Soley: There is an important point for anyone who is told by a journalist—this is what journalists need to take on board—that he or she will protect their sources. In this case, one of the tragedies was that the information was passed on to two Members, who then used it in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Clearly that had a pretty devastating effect on Dr. Kelly.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point.
The welfare service of the Ministry of Defence has been in close contact with Dr. Kelly's family at the relevant times. It has been available to provide whatever support the family requested. Mrs. Kelly's solicitor has been told that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are both available to talk to Mrs. Kelly if she would like us to do so. I was grateful to her for agreeing to see me last summer. I repeat that in the course of a long conversation I was profoundly impressed both by her compassion and by her understanding.
Such understanding must now be extended to others caught up in these events. Many were involved simply because they held particular posts at the relevant time. They were carrying out their professional responsibilities in a way that was required by virtue of their employment—responsibilities that had never previously thrown them into the media spotlight and which will almost certainly never again involve them in such attention.
Lord Hutton was asked by the Government to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. He was not asked to make a wider inquiry. I
think that that is the answer to a number of criticisms of the scope of the inquiry, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Normally an unexplained death is investigated by a coroner. In this case it would have been difficult for an inquest adequately to investigate the intense controversy that raged in this country and elsewhere following the broadcast by Andrew Gilligan on "Today" on 29 May 2003.
Mr. Grieve: Now that we are on the subject of controversy, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity—it is important—to clear up the apparent discrepancy between his state of knowledge on 18 March and that of the Prime Minister? Perhaps he can shed light on why he knew that the reference was to battlefield weapons only, whereas the Prime Minister did not.
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will speak for himself. I make it clear that inevitably—[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition, who is speaking from a sedentary position, knows full well that in the details of Government activity the responsibilities that I carry out will inevitably provide me with a great deal more detailed information than is necessarily available at all times.
Mr. Howard: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that he had this information but that he did not pass it on to the Prime Minister? Is that what he is telling the House this evening? The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had it, the Secretary of State had it but apparently the Prime Minister did not.
Mr. Hoon: Rather than getting excited at this stage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should reflect calmly and carefully that the issue of the delivery system was not an issue at the time. There was not a debate in September about the nature of the delivery process. I asked the question out of curiosity. I did not expect—[Interruption.] That is because it was not an issue. I would be very pleased if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is again getting excited about these matters, would indicate when this became a political issue as far as he was concerned. It was not in September 2003.
I and other witnesses indicated in evidence to Lord Hutton that the media reporting that followed the broadcast questioned the Government's integrity in just about the most fundamental way imaginable. Above all, it challenged the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It suggested that he and I were prepared to commit Britain's armed forces, and to risk and lose their lives, on the basis of information that we apparently knew to be false. In such circumstances, nothing but a public inquiry could have established the facts and helped to restore public confidence.
A public inquiry is rightly a rigorous process for those who appear before it. I have no doubt that everyone who gave evidence would agree with me at least on that. Each individual's thoughts, actions and decisions were subjected to minute scrutiny by an array of legal minds. That is not a comfortable experience for anyone—nor, given the questions involved, should it be.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |