Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Dragging out the draft

From Hansard (Crown Copyright acknowledged):

28 Jan 2008 : Column 58W

Williams Draft Dossier


Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to the decision of the Information Tribunal dated 22 January 2008, when he plans to make public a copy of the Williams draft dossier; and in what format the document will be made available. [182538]

Dr. Howells: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is considering the judgment and the legal options available to it. It would be premature to say anything more at this stage.

If, and when, the document is made available it will be released in the form in which we have it, subject to a very small redaction in the manuscript annotations that the Information Tribunal ordered should be made under section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act.


Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to the decision of the Information Tribunal dated 22 January 2008, paragraph 22 (iv), which two individuals annotated the Williams draft; and what status these contributions had within the drafting process. [182693]

Dr. Howells: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently considering the Information Tribunal's judgment and the legal options available to it. It would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of the document at this stage.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/
cm080128/text/80128w0012.htm#08012831000647

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Publish and be damned

From The Times

January 24, 2008

Publish the secret document on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ministers are told

Michael Evans, Defence Editor


Ministers were ordered yesterday to make public a secret document about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that could shed light on the origins of the Government’s claim that Saddam Hussein needed just 45 minutes to launch non-conventional warheads at British troops.

The unpublished draft document was drawn up by John Williams, who in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq, was the head of information at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and one of the senior government spin-doctors.

Yesterday the Information Tribunal ruled that the Williams report should be made public so that people could make their own judgment as to whether its contents could have influenced the official dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including the 45-minute claim.

Although the Government, under Tony Blair, acknowledged that Mr Williams had written a draft report on Iraq’s WMDs, officials said that he had done so on his own initiative, and that it was dismissed.

The Government insisted that the official dossier on Iraq’s WMDs published in September 2002 was drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee, then headed by Sir John Scarlett, who is now the head of MI6, and that it was based on intelligence material.

Critics of the Iraq dossier, however, accused the Government of using Downing Street and Foreign Office spin-doctors to dramatise the contents to make the case for invading Iraq.

This has always been denied. But opponents of the war will want to see whether the 45-minute claim was included in the Williams draft.

The unprecedented ruling followed a request by the New Statesman under the Freedom of Information Act for the Williams dossier to be made public.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, ruled in favour of the magazine in May last year, but the Foreign Office appealed to the tribunal.

Last night the Foreign Office said that the tribunal ruling was being studied closely.

Sources at the Foreign Office said that a minister had to give authorisation for the release of the document, and would still be in a position to claim that publication would not be in the national interest...

[]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3240548.ece

Friday, January 11, 2008

Govt rejects call for new Inquiry

Government rejects call for new David Kelly inquiry

By Andy Tate


09 01 08

The Government has rejected calls for a new inquiry into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly following claims in a book by Lewes MP Norman Baker that he may have been murdered.

Lord Hutton's report into the death of the scientist concluded that Dr Kelly had committed suicide, but Mr Baker, in a book published late last year, said Dr Kelly was probably the victim of a group of Iraqi exiles.

Dr Kelly's comments to the journalist Andrew Gilligan about weapons in Iraq sparked a long-running row between Downing Street and the BBC which was still continuing when Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003.

Labour peer Lord Berkeley said at Lords question time: "The new book by Norman Baker concludes that the suicide of Dr Kelly would be extremely unlikely and certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"The Hutton inquiry was not a statutory one and no evidence was taken under oath, so isn't it now necessary for the Government to set up a proper statutory inquiry to investigate fully the circumstances of this senior Government employee."

Lord Hutton concluded that Dr Kelly died by cutting his left wrist and taking co-proxamol painkilling tablets.

Justice Minister Lord Hunt this week described Mr Baker's book as "a good Christmas read".

But he told peers: "There was a thorough inquiry by Lord Hutton which reached the conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide.

"Lord Hutton was satisfied no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly because a very lengthy examination, of the area where his body was found, by police officers and by forensic biologists found no traces whatever of a struggle or involvement by a third party.

"And the wounds to Dr Kelly came from a knife from his study in his home and it was highly unlikely that a third party could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of co-proxamol tablets."

Mr Baker repeated calls for new inquiries into the Iraq war and Dr Kelly's death.

He said: "I am very pleased that Lord Berkeley took the decision to raise this matter in the House of Lords and to call for a new inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly.

"The Hutton Inquiry was far from thorough, as the minister claimed, but was an incomplete, flawed inquiry which left many very important questions unanswered.

"What I would like to see now is both a proper inquiry into the whole fiasco of the Iraq war, and a re-opening of the inquest into the death of the country's most eminent weapons inspector."

3:40pm Wednesday 9th January 2008

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/
display.var.1953770.0.government_rejects_call
_for_new_david_kelly_inquiry.php



From Hansard (Crown Copyright acknowledged):

8 Jan 2008 : Column 740

Dr David Kelly

2.59 pm

Lord Berkeley
asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether, as a result of new evidence recently published, they will set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate in full the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have no plans to do so.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the new book by Norman Baker MP, which collects a large amount of new evidence? I do not know whether he read it over the Christmas holiday, but it is quite a frightening read. It concludes that suicide by Dr Kelly would be extremely unlikely and is certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt. As my noble friend will know, the Hutton inquiry was not statutory, and no evidence was taken under oath, so is it not now necessary for the Government to set up a proper statutory inquiry to investigate fully the circumstances of the death of this senior government employee?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have read extracts from the report, which I would describe as a good Christmas read. There was a thorough inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, who reached the conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide. He found that the cause of Dr Kelly's death was:

"Haemorrhage ... Incised wounds to the left wrist ... Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis".

He was,

"satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly",
because,

"A very careful and lengthy examination of the area where his body was found by police officers and by a forensic biologist found no traces whatever of a struggle or of any involvement by a third party ... The wounds to his wrist were inflicted by a knife which came from Dr Kelly's desk in his study in his home, and ... It is highly unlikely that a third party or third parties could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of Coproxamol tablets".

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, used an exceptional power to direct the coroner not to continue with the original inquest and not to resume it unless there was an exceptional reason. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, is the only time this provision has been used in a non-statutory inquiry. Surely the new evidence that has come to light since the Hutton inquiry and to which Mr Norman Baker refers in his book is an exceptional reason, which requires the events to be fully investigated, witnesses to be called and cross-examined and a verdict to be reached beyond reasonable doubt, just as in the current lengthy inquest relating to the Princess of Wales.

8 Jan 2008 : Column 741

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: But, my Lords, the Hutton report was sent to the coroner at the end of the inquiry in accordance with Section 17A and, in an open court hearing on 14 March 2004, the coroner himself decided that there was no exceptional reason to resume the adjourned inquest. There is much supposition in the report but, if evidence there is, it is open to Mr Baker and any other person, if they wish, to seek a new inquest under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely that is not good enough. The book by Mr Baker is well researched and shows that there is no evidence that Dr Kelly was suicidal in any way. Furthermore, Mr Baker absolves MI6 and the CIA from any blame but believes that perhaps some very nasty people in Iraq, who did not want things disclosed, might have been behind his death. Do we not owe it to Dr Kelly's wife and family to have another, thorough inquiry in the light of this new evidence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that any of us can speculate on what Dr Kelly’s family are thinking at the present time or around the tragic circumstances of his death some years ago. I have nothing further to add. The Government believe that the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in this matter was conclusive. The noble and learned Lord set out the reasons for his conclusion. I say again that, if any person has evidence, they can take it to the authorities—to the police—and there is a procedure for a further inquest to be held. That is surely the approach that should be taken here.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/
ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80108-0002.htm