House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jan 2004 (pt 12)

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Howard: David Kelly was a fine public servant, who did an immense amount of public good for this country, and I am sure would have done so again in the future. I pay tribute to his memory. I pay tribute, too, to Mrs. Kelly and her family, who have behaved with great dignity throughout the events of the last six months.

I also thank Lord Hutton for his report. We accept his conclusions. The report is about the chain of events which started with the publication of a dossier, led to a feud between the Government and the BBC, and then finally to the death of a distinguished scientist in the Oxfordshire countryside.

The report's findings about the BBC speak for themselves. We have long argued that the board of governors cannot both run and regulate the BBC. Does the Prime Minister agree that the case for independent regulation of the BBC has never been stronger?

At the beginning of his report Lord Hutton refers to the controversy and debate about weapons of mass destruction—whether they exist, and what the Government told the country in the run-up to the war. Lord Hutton is quite clear that these issues are beyond his remit. Will the Prime Minister therefore now undertake to establish—

Hon. Members : Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was heard. It is only right and proper that the Leader of the Opposition be heard.

Mr. Howard rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate anyone shouting, including Ministers.

Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister now undertake to establish an independent inquiry into these wider questions? That kind of inquiry took place after the Falklands War. Is not the case for holding such an inquiry now overwhelming?

Lord Hutton finds, in paragraph 228(8) of his report, that on one level the September dossier was indeed sexed up. In paragraph 228(7) he says that he cannot rule out the possibility that the Prime Minister's attitude

28 Jan 2004 : Column 344

"may have subconsciously influenced Mr. Scarlett"—[Interruption.]

That is what he says:

"and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment."

Is that not a very serious finding indeed? Does it not go to the heart of the reliance which can be placed on any published intelligence material in future—at least while the right hon. Gentleman remains Prime Minister? And does the right hon. Gentleman now agree with the evidence of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service that, with the benefit of hindsight, the 45-minute claim was given undue prominence in the September dossier?

Lord Hutton chooses his words very carefully—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that I will not allow shouting. If I see an hon. Member shouting, I will ask that person to leave the Chamber. The leader of the Opposition must be heard.

Mr. Howard: Lord Hutton expressly finds, at paragraphs 402 and 403 of his report, that there was no conflict between what Sir Kevin Tebitt said to the inquiry and what the Prime Minister said to the inquiry. As the Prime Minister well knows, the questions I have put to him are about what he said on the plane to Hong Kong and eventually repeated in this House. On that, Lord Hutton merely says, in very carefully worded language, at paragraph 411:

"the answers given by the Prime Minister to members of the press in the aeroplane cast no light on the issues about which I have heard a large volume of evidence."

Of course they do not. Lord Hutton never heard evidence about what was said on the aeroplane. The Prime Minister never sent him a transcript of what he said on the aeroplane. If he had not been sent it by one of my right hon. Friends, Lord Hutton might never have even seen that transcript. Lord Hutton says, at paragraph 416 of his report,

"I am satisfied that the decision to issue the statement which said that a civil servant, who was not named, had come forward was taken by the Prime Minister at a meeting in 10 Downing Street on 8 July".

So the Prime Minister chaired the meeting that decided to issue that press release. That press release led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly. David Kelly knew that, and it says so in the report, at paragraph 439. The Ministry of Defence knew that. It says so in the report, at paragraph 409. Alastair Campbell knew that. That is why he wrote in his diary, "That meant do it as a press release." Anyone with any sense would know that if one issues a press release like that, the name will come out. That is why the press got David Kelly's name the very next day.

Is the Prime Minister the only person who thought that issuing that press release would not lead to the naming of David Kelly? Is that what he is asking us to believe? Is he really that naive? Is it not clear to everyone that the release of the statement, authorised by the Prime Minister, led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly? Is the Prime Minister really telling the House that he had no idea that that would happen?

28 Jan 2004 : Column 345

Listen to what Lord Hutton said at paragraph 407. He said:

"The issuing of the statement authorised by the Prime Minister did give rise to the questions by the press as to the identity of the civil servant and these questions led on to the MoD confirming Dr Kelly's name".

It is no wonder that Lord Hutton says that there was no plan or strategy to do this covertly. There did not need to be. It was all going to happen anyway, as night follows day, all because of the decision made by the Prime Minister. The best that can be said about the answer that the Prime Minister gave on the plane, and repeated in this House, is that it is at odds with what Lord Hutton concludes.

When all is said and done, I suspect that what will remain in people's minds is the blinding light that this inquiry has shed on the innermost workings of the Prime Minister and his Government. Is not the picture painted in that evidence an extraordinarily vivid one? Vital meetings are unminuted, crucial telephone calls are unrecorded. In Lord Hutton's words in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the notes made by private secretaries were

"very sparse and of no relevance."

Whatever happened to the recommendations made by the Hammond inquiry into the Hinduja passports affair? [Interruption.] Oh, yes—just listen. That report, given to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howard: That report, given to the Prime Minister five years ago, recommended that proper records were taken of meetings and telephone conversations between Ministers and their advisers. Why has nothing been done to implement those recommendations? What a picture the evidence to the Hutton inquiry portrayed of the state of mind of the Prime Minister's closest advisers and confidantes.

Alastair Campbell wrote in his diary:

"The biggest thing needed was the source out."

And what was the reason for this? The reason, as he agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence, was that that would stuff Gilligan. "Stuff", of course, was not the word that he used. I cannot repeat in the House the language used by the man hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be his director of communications.

The Secretary of State for Defence said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity, yet he agreed to a course of action that he knew would lead to the naming of Dr. Kelly, he did not bother to tell David Kelly what he was going to do, he did not tell David Kelly that he would be named, and he did not give David Kelly the support that he needed as he was thrown into the media frenzy. Is not the Hutton report quite clear on this point? Paragraph 432 says:

"the MoD was at fault in the procedure which it adopted in relation to Dr Kelly after the decision had been taken to release the statement."

The Secretary of State for Defence then went to great lengths to deny what he had done. He denied it on television immediately afterwards and he denied it to the inquiry. He said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity.

28 Jan 2004 : Column 346

Is not there the starkest contrast between David Kelly, the dedicated scientist and weapons inspector who had done so much for our country, and the cabal of Ministers and advisers, including the Prime Minister himself, which was so obsessed with its war with the BBC that it gave scant attention to his welfare? Is not there the starkest contrast between the hours and days that it spent working out different ways of releasing his name to the media, and the two and half minutes that it spent informing him of the consequences of its actions?

No one in Government can look back on this episode with pride. The nation will in due course deliver its verdict. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If this conduct continues, there is a danger that I will have to suspend the House, and I do not want to have to do that. Nor do I want hissing throughout the Chamber. I can tell some hon. Ladies that they are close to being asked to withdraw from the Chamber. The behaviour of this gathering is important, particularly to the Kelly family.

Next Section

Index

Home Page