| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
7 Sept 2004 : Column WA95
Written Answers
Tuesday, 7 September 2004.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence Review Committee
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Attorney-General had access to intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction at any stage after the provision of the advice referred to in paragraph 374 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. [HL3871]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): As stated in paragraph 367 of the Butler report, I was briefed on relevant intelligence issues in September 2002 and February 2003. In addition, I have seen a number of intelligence assessments produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee subsequent to the initial advice referred to in paragraph 374 of the Report.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list the meetings and discussions involving the Attorney-General referred to in paragraph 377 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction stating the date of each discussion; who was present; or participated, in the conversations; and whether minutes were kept. [HL3874]
Lord Goldsmith: The information relating to the dates of and participants in the meetings concerns internal discussion and advice is withheld under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Records were kept of some of these discussions.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what date the advice given by the Attorney-General in paragraph 374 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction was given; whether he had access to intelligence, including intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction, at that time, and, if not, how the Attorney-General assessed whether or not there was an imminent threat to the United Kingdom. [HL3878]
Lord Goldsmith: The information requested relating to the date of my legal advice referred to in paragraph 374 of the Butler Report concerns internal discussion and advice and is withheld under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Prior to giving this advice I had seen some intelligence assessments relating to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As stated in
7 Sept 2004 : Column WA96
paragraph 374 of the Butler Report, I concluded that on the basis of the information I had seen, there would be no justification for the use of force against Iraq on grounds of self-defence against an imminent threat.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what ministerial capacity the Lord Falconer of Thoroton was present at the meeting of 13 March referred to in paragraph 381 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. [HL3877]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): Members of the Government have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who in the Prime Minister's office asked the Attorney-General to put his view of the legal position in writing, as referred to in paragraph 378 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction; why his previous advice was considered insufficient by No. 10; and whether the Prime Minister was aware of the request. [HL3872]
Baroness Amos: Following the Attorney-General's meeting with Jonathan Powell, Sir David Manning and Baroness Morgan on 28 February 2003, Baroness Morgan, on behalf of the Prime Minister, asked the Attorney-General to provide his advice in writing.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish in full the correspondence quoted in part in paragraphs 383 and 384 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. [HL3873]
Baroness Amos: To the extent that parts of the correspondence referred to in paragraph 383 of the Butler report have not been disclosed, it is subject to legal professional privilege and therefore withheld under exemption 4 of the code of practice on access to government information. The substance of the letter from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the Legal Secretary to the Attorney-General is set out in paragraph 384.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who was present at the meeting of 13 March referred to in paragraph 381 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction; what was the purpose of the meeting; who convened it; whether minutes were kept; and whether the advice given by the Attorney-General referred to in paragraph 374 of the report was discussed. [HL3875]
Baroness Amos: As set out in the Butler report the meeting on 13 March 2003 was attended by the Attorney-General, Lord Falconer, and Baroness Morgan. No record of the meeting was made, but the Attorney-General's view of the legal position was set out in a Written Answer in Parliament on 17 March 2003.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who was present at the Meeting of 28 February referred to in paragraph 378 of the Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction; what was the purpose of the Meeting; who convened it; whether minutes were kept; and whether the advice given by the Attorney-General on 7 March 2003 was discussed. [HL3876]
Baroness Amos: As set out in the Butler report, the meeting on 28 February 2003 was attended by the Attorney-General, Jonathan Powell, Sir David Manning and Baroness Morgan. No record of the meeting was made.
Ulster Scots Academy
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 26 May (WA 133) concerning the Ulster-Scots Agency, how much has been paid by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to consultants for advice on the proposed academy in each year since 2000. [HL3088]
Baroness Amos: I have nothing further to add to the answer given on 26 May (WA 133) and 6 April (WA 219).
Southern Sudan
The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the current emergency in the Upper Nile in southern Sudan; how many people have died or are displaced as a result of fighting around Malakal; and what effect this will have on the overall peace agreement in the south. [HL3886]
Baroness Amos: DfID is very concerned by reports that civilians have been targeted and that thousands of people have been displaced in the Upper Nile region of southern Sudan. DfID is following the situation closely and we are in contact with all parties in the area, including the verification and monitoring team (VMT), which is reponsible for investigating and reporting on breaches of the cessation of hostilities.
DfID raised the matter with the Sudanese Foreign Minister during his visit to London on 11 May and EU Heads of Mission, including our ambassador in
7 Sept 2004 : Column WA98
Khartoum, visited on 27 May. Over £270,000 has been provided to non-governmental organisations to provide for the estimated 48,000 displaced persons in the region.
Unfortunately at this time there is no information regarding the number of conflict-related deaths. DfID is encouraging all parties to respect the terms of the ceasefire and are calling on the parties to continue to work together so that a comprehensive peace agreement can be signed in the next few months. Notably in the south, DfID is pressing for dialogue between the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), other southern groups and the governmnent, in preparation for the broad-based regional government and institutions envisaged in the Machakos Protocol.
Ulster-Scots Agency
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 22 June (WA 114), whether they approved of the Ulster-Scots Agency's work in the United States. [HL3458]
Baroness Amos: Approval of the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency is a matter for members of the board of the North-South Language Body with responsibility for the exercise of the functions of the body through the agency. The agency did not seek government approval for the work of the agency in the United States of America.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |