时间：2004年1月28日下午
地点：英国议会下院
时段：Prime Minister’s Questions
事件：托尼·布莱尔PK迈克尔·霍华德，辩论白热化
David Burnside: I join the Prime Minister in expressing condolences to the family and friends of that serving member of our armed forces.
The Prime Minister was probably not aware as we were preparing for the great education debate yesterday that, the day before, the Minister with responsibility for education in the Northern Ireland Office announced that academic selection between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland should end. The Prime Minister should be aware that Northern Ireland has in its secondary sector and grammar schools, such as Antrim grammar school and Ballyclare high school, the highest academic standards—better than all the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a great selling point for Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister personally intervene to defend our grammar schools, as something good and positive in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is right, in that that is what the post-primary review body has recommended. I heard what he said, and no doubt there will be strong feelings on both sides of that argument. I simply point out to him that if we were fortunate enough to get devolved institutions back up and running in Northern Ireland, this would be a devolved matter again. Perhaps I can look forward to his help in securing that.
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): As we now learn on the anniversary of the miners strike that the enemy within turns out to be the BBC, had we not better privatise it sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister: This is a day for diplomacy, at least at this stage.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): May I first—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow shouting. If there is any more shouting, the Members in question will have to be removed from the Chamber.
Mr. Howard: May I first join the Prime Minister in expressing my sincere sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of the British soldier killed in Afghanistan today? Will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no one in or around No. 10 Downing street leaked the Hutton report last night?
The Prime Minister: I most certainly will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Nobody, as far as I am aware, has leaked that from the Government or any part of government—I do not believe that to be the case. The chairman of the Conservative party was on television last night saying that the leaking of this document was a despicable act from “a morally bankrupt Government.” Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now produce the evidence for that statement.
Mr. Howard: Is not the best way of getting the evidence for there to be a proper inquiry entirely independent of Government? Will we have such an inquiry? And, by the way, who does the Prime Minister think benefited from the leak?
The Prime Minister: As we have already made clear, we are very happy that there should be an inquiry, and that is why we are in touch with Lord Hutton. If he recommends a certain course of action, we will take it.
Let me go back to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said a moment ago. He said that the inquiry was a way of getting at the evidence.
In other words, there was no actual evidence for what the chairman of the Conservative party said. He did not say, “It might be that the leaking of the document is a despicable act from the Government.” He said that the leaking was from the Government. What was the evidence for that?
Mr. Howard: I hope that we get a full inquiry independent of Government, and I advise the Prime Minister, to coin a phrase, not to prejudge that inquiry.
The background to the Hutton report is what the Government told us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The head of the Iraq survey group, David Kay, has now said that he does not believe that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist or existed in Iraq. His replacement said that the reason that they have not been found is that they are probably not there. What does the Prime Minister think?
The Prime Minister: First let me return to the inquiry, because I do not think that this point should be let go. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not want to prejudge the inquiry, but that is precisely what the chairman of the Conservative party has done. I therefore ask him again either to substantiate the claim that the Government leaked the document or to withdraw it, because he is getting rather a reputation for making such allegations when there is no substance to them.
As for weapons of mass destruction, let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he said way before the Hutton inquiry:
"The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a danger that we ignore at our peril . . . The threat to world peace from Iraq is acute and we must combat it with all legitimate means at our disposal."
So do not let him pretend that he has somehow been misled over weapons of mass destruction; it is just another example of his blatant opportunism.
Mr. Howard: Of course we supported the war; we still support the war, but we also want to get at the truth. The Prime Minister may not understand that it is important to get at the truth, but we do. He may not understand that it is possible both to support the war and to get at the truth, but we do. Nearly eight months ago, in May last year, the Prime Minister said that he was waiting to publish “a complete picture” of intelligence, including “what we’ve actually found”. Some material, he said, was not yet public and “what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly”.When will he publish that material, which he promised nearly eight months ago?
The Prime Minister: When the Iraq survey group completes its work, which is what we have said right from the very beginning. It is surely right that when we have a group in Iraq looking at the evidence, we wait until that group concludes before we publish it.
Just so that we are quite clear as to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accused me of, I tell the House what he said back in August last year:
"There was and is, in my view, a valid and legitimate case for having gone to war with Iraq. There was no need to lie, there was no need to mislead people in order to make that case. And to mislead the House of Commons and the nation in order to gain support for going to war is a very, very serious matter indeed.
He also said:
"What people are increasingly coming to realise is that we have a Prime Minister who is a stranger to the truth".
I hope that if that allegation is found not to be proven, he will have the decency to apologise for it.
Mr. Howard: We all know, Mr. Speaker, that a wider inquiry than the one that the Prime Minister has set out is necessary to test that allegation, so there is nothing for me to withdraw. Why on earth does the Prime Minister need to wait before publishing the evidence? Eight months ago he said that he was going to publish the material that he had. Just before Christmas he said that there was
"massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists"
and
"plans to develop long range ballistic missiles." What is he waiting for? Why does he not publish that evidence now?
The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, that evidence has already been published by the Iraq survey group. Let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Dr. Kay said that the ISG has found documents and equipment at undeclared laboratories and facilities. Dr. Kay continued:
"Secondly, they have found substantial evidence of research and design work on longer-range missile delivery systems."
Regarding biological weapons, he said that there was evidence that
"the Iraqis continued research and development right up until the end to improve their ability to produce ricin."
So the evidence is there and has already been published by the Iraq survey group.
I suggest that the inquiry that we need is into the blatant opportunism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The truth is that he seeks to conceal the absence of any proper policies for the country by making allegations against the integrity of the Government that he cannot sustain.
Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister place in the Library of the House of Commons today the massive evidence that he says has already been published of
"a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long-range ballistic missiles"?
He says that the evidence has been published; will he put it in the House of Commons Library today so that the whole country can judge whether it supports that allegation?
The Prime Minister: The evidence is, of course, in the Iraq survey group report. Let me make one other point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: there is, of course, a legitimate debate about whether the conflict in Iraq was right. That is a legitimate debate in which there can be legitimate disagreements. It is completely unnecessary to have a debate that suggests that somehow we deliberately misled the public on that case.
The plain fact is that that allegation is particularly absurd coming from him and the Conservative party, as I recall that even before the publication of the famous dossier he and his colleagues were urging me to take action and accusing me of dithering for not having done so. Whoever else can make that claim, frankly it does not lie in his mouth to make it.
