时间：2004年10月13日下午
地点：英国议会下院
时段：Prime Minister’s Questions
事件：托尼·布莱尔VS迈克尔·霍华德，布莱尔再度因伊战问题遭遇诚信危机
Sir Teddy Taylor: As we have not heard a great deal recently about policy on the single currency, will the Prime Minister say whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to seek entry, subject to tests? If so, in the event of his being re-elected, when would the referendum be held? If there were a clear no vote, would he accept that absolutely as a decision for the foreseeable future?
The Prime Minister: The position on the single currency remains unchanged and, for once, the hon. Gentleman accurately describes it. In principle, we favour joining, subject to economic tests that have to be met. Were a referendum to be put to the British people on such an issue, the decision would, of course, be binding and would be accepted. He must be delighted that, after years of being a lonely campaigner on the Conservative Benches for withdrawal from Europe, he now finds himself in the mainstream of his party.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab): Last October, P&O Ferries announced the sacking of 600 British seafarers in Dover. This October, it wants to sack another 1,200 seafarers and shore staff and it wants to threaten swingeing cuts to on-board manning, which will impact on safety. What help can redundant workers in Dover and other parts expect from Government, and what action will Ministers take to ensure that P&O is not allowed to compromise safety in the interests of profit?
The Prime Minister: We will, of course, make sure that P&O, as all others must, abides by its health and safety obligations. We are sorry about the number of my hon. Friend’s constituents who will lose their jobs as a result of this announcement, but the Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to help anyone who is made redundant. I can speak from experience in my constituency. Emergency programmes that the Department for Work and Pensions has put in place have been very successful in finding redundant workers alternative employment. I assure him that we will do everything we can in Dover to make sure that that happens.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): I join the Prime Minister in expressing my deepest sympathy to the family of Kenneth Bigley and my great admiration for the enormous dignity with which they have borne their dreadful ordeal. I, too, join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences to the families of the British soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq.
I support the war; it was the right thing to do. Will the Prime Minister realise that, before he can move on, there is one matter that he must deal with? He did not accurately report the intelligence that he received to the country. Will he now say sorry for that?
The Prime Minister: I made it abundantly clear—and do so again—at the time of the Butler report that I take full responsibility and, indeed, apologise for any information given in good faith that has subsequently turned out to be wrong. That is entirely proper; I have already done that. I do not accept in any way that there was any deception of anyone. That has been looked into by four separate independent inquiries, and in each case the allegation has been found to be wrong.
I will not apologise for removing Saddam Hussein. I will not apologise for the conflict; I believe that it was right then, that it is right now and that it is essential for the wider security of that region and the world. I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would stop playing politics with the issue—that is precisely what he is doing. He should remember that he and his party supported the war for precisely the same reasons as we did. It would be more helpful if he would back our troops out in Iraq rather than doing what he is doing now.
Mr. Howard: We back our troops wholeheartedly. I did not ask the Prime Minister to apologise for the war, because I support it, and neither did I ask him to apologise for what he describes as “the information”. I asked him very specifically about the way in which he misrepresented the intelligence that he received to the country. Why can he not bring himself to say sorry for that?
The Prime Minister: I cannot bring myself to say that I misrepresented the evidence because I do not accept that I did. What is more, in the light of some of the comments of the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, it is worth pointing out what was unearthed by the Foreign Secretary—he told the House this yesterday, but it deserves repeating—about Hans Blix’s view of the September information that we gave to the House at the time.
I hope that the House will permit me to read from the report by the UK United Nations mission about Hans Blix’s view of the dossier. He said that he felt that
"it did not exaggerate the facts, nor revert to rhetoric".
Blix thought that
"the section risked understating Iraq's indigenous capacity to produce WMD".
In other words, it was the case that everyone at the time accepted the evidence on weapons of mass destruction. It is correct that some of that evidence, although not all of it, has subsequently turned out to be wrong, but that is a very different matter from deceiving the House, so I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw that allegation.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has just asserted that he accurately conveyed the intelligence to the country. The intelligence that he received made it clear that little was known about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1998. The Prime Minister told the country that the intelligence had established beyond doubt that Saddam had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons. How can he maintain that he accurately reported the intelligence to the country? Why will he not say sorry for that?
The Prime Minister: As we explained when we had the debate in July, the intelligence was precisely that Saddam Hussein continued to produce WMDs. We know from the Iraq survey group that he indeed had the intent and capability and retained the scientists and desire, but that he might not have had stockpiles of actually deployable weapons. We have accepted that and I have already apologised for any information that subsequently turned out to be wrong.
Everyone knows what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do. Having supported the war and urged us to go to war, he is now attempting to capitalise on anti-war sentiment to try to give himself credibility. I have been through what he has been saying over the past few months, and at the last count he had no fewer than four separate positions on the Iraq war—three too many for anyone who seriously aspires to be Prime Minister.
