Individual Post Archive
« Wanted: Ł75k codebreaker for new Bletchley Park |
Main
| War leaves Blair with a battle to win votes »
LORD HUTTON disclosed yesterday why he spared Tony Blairâs blushes by not calling him back for a public crossexamination in the witness box. He was worried it would result in âglaring headlinesâ.
In his first public appearance since his verdict on the death of David Kelly, the government scientist, Lord Hutton robustly defended the narrow remit of his report before a committee of MPs.
The retired law lord also admitted that he had expected to be criticised for his findings, which were derided as a whitewash by some for exonerating Downing Street and castigating the BBC over events leading to Dr Kellys suicide.
Lord Hutton told the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration that he gave very careful thought to recalling Mr Blair. The former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland said: If I had brought the Prime Minister back to be cross-examined, I have to say I would regard it as simply playing to the gallery: Here is a man who is not afraid to bring back the Prime Minister to be cross-examined. Various allegations could be put to the Prime Minister, there would be glaring headlines about the allegations and I did not think it was appropriate to do that.
Tony Wright, chairman of the committee, asked Lord Hutton, 72, why his verdict excluded the reliability of intelligence, Downing Streets relationship with spy chiefs or whether the Iraq dossier was produced for political purposes. He said that to some it seemed almost incomprehensible . . . and inexplicable that you would not cast your net slightly wider.
Lord Hutton replied: I did not think it was inexplicable because the major controversy which arose in relation to Dr Kelly was the allegation that the Government probably knew that the 45-minute [weapons of mass destruction] claim was wrong. The question of whether the intelligence was reliable was a very serious question . . . But an even graver allegation is that the Government probably knew that the intelligence was wrong. That was what created the major controversy.
Dr Wright persisted, saying that if there had not been an argument over the reliability of the intelligence, events would not have turned out as they did for Dr Kelly. To abstract them into the single argument about the validity of one broadcast, one single claim, people thought that had a distorting effect.
Lord Hutton replied: I dont think it had a distorting effect because the real conflict between Downing Street and the BBC related to that aspect of the broadcast. He said that he had been asked to conduct the inquiry as a matter of urgency and that if he had looked at wider intelligence issues, not only would the inquiry have been very protracted, it would have been a totally different inquiry . . . that I dont think it was appropriate that a single judge sitting in public should embark upon.
Lord Hutton said he thought it was inevitable there would be criticism of his report and that he had expected it. It was not pleasant being attacked in the press but I was not shocked . . . Undoubtedly, there are very strong feelings in the country about the war in Iraq. Many people were opposed to it and I think that coloured the public reaction.
Dr Wright suggested: When you were sitting, you were sainted, you were this fearless forensic investigator. The moment you reported, you were an Establishment lackey. Lord Hutton replied: The duty of a judge is to decide on the issues before him without fear or favour and without having regard to the political consequences and without having regard to comments that may be made by editorial writers.
Asked why he did not make specific recommendations, he said that the BBC had to decide its own response to his report. He denied reports that he believed the resignations of Gavyn Davies as BBC Chairman and Greg Dyke as Director-General had been unnecessary. I had not expressed such views . . . The BBC had to act on the criticisms that I made.
He said he was approached by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, to conduct the inquiry immediately after the discovery of Dr Kellys body on July 18. Although his terms of reference were not precisely defined by Lord Falconer, he said it had been quite clear from the outset that it would be about the circumstances surrounding Dr Kellys death. He said he could have changed the terms at any time but did not need to do so.
www.timesonline.co.uk/hutton
May 14, 2004 at 07:53 PM in UK | Permalink | TrackBack (21) | Top of page | Blog Home