28 January 2004

Howard: The nation will deliver its verdict on the Government 

Response to the Prime Minister's Statement on Lord Hutton's Inquiry in the House of Commons

Mr Speaker, David Kelly was a fine public servant who did an immense amount of public good for this country in the past and I'm 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.

This 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 an independent inquiry into these wider questions?

That kind of inquiry took place after the Falklands War. Isn't 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 the same paragraph, he says that he cannot rule out the possibility that the Prime Minister's attitude 'may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and 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 he now agree with the evidence of the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service that with the benefit of hindsight the forty five minute claim was given "undue prominence" in the September dossier?

Lord Hutton chooses his words very carefully. He expressly finds at paras 402 and 403 of his report that there was no conflict between what Sir Kevin Tebbit 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 Hongkong and eventually repeated in this House.

On that Lord Hutton merely says, in very carefully worded language "the answers given by the Prime Minister to members of the press in the aeroplane cast no light on the issues about which", he says, "I have heard a large volume of evidence."

Well of course they don't. 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 hadn't been sent it by one of my Right Honourable Friends, Lord Hutton might never even have seen that transcript.

Lord Hutton says at para 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 No10 Downing Street on 8th July."

So the Prime Minister chaired the meeting that decided to issue a press release.

That press release led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly.
David Kelly knew that - and it says so in the report (para 439).
The Ministry of Defence knew that - and it says so in the report (para 409).

Alastair Campbell knew that - that's why he wrote in his diary "that meant do it as a press release."
Anyone with any sense would know that if you issue a press release like that, the name will come out.

And that's 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 Dr Kelly? Is that what he is asking us to believe? Is he really that naïve?

Isn't it 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 this House he had no idea that would happen? 

Listen to what Lord Hutton said in para 407:
"The issuing of a statement", he said "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's no wonder Lord Hutton says there was no plan or strategy to do this covertly. There didn't need to be! It was 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 peoples' minds is the blinding light which this inquiry has shed on the inner most workings of the Prime Minister and his Government.

Isn't 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 Honourable Friend, the Member for Hitchen and Harpenden, 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? 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 advisors. 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 was because as he agreed with the Defence Secretary 'that... would stuff Gilligan'. `Stuff', of course Mr Speaker, was not the word he used. I can't repeat in the House the language used by the man hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be his Director of Communications.

And then there's the Secretary of State for Defence. The Defence Secretary said he 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 didn't bother to tell David Kelly what he was going to do. He didn't tell David Kelly that he would be named. He didn't give David Kelly any of the support that he needed as he was thrown into the media frenzy. 

Isn't the Hutton report quite clear about this point? Para 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 Defence Secretary then went to great lengths to deny what he had done. He denied it on television immediately afterwards. He denied it to the inquiry. 

He said he made great efforts to ensure Dr Kelly's anonymity. Mr Speaker, isn't 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 - who were so obsessed with their war with the BBC that they gave scant attention to his welfare? 

Isn't there the starkest contrast between the hours and days they spent working out different ways of releasing his name to the media with the two and half minutes that they spent informing him of the consequences of their actions? 

Mr Speaker, no one in the Government can look back on this episode with pride. The nation will in due course deliver its verdict