Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

Yes. The loss of faith in the political system is another dramatic consequence of the disastrous events in Iraq.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Salmond]

Let me finish this point, before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

This point was raised in the Liaison Committee, when Chilcot was asked about weapons of mass destruction. He was asked repeatedly whether a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion the Prime Minister had come to. The best exchanges were between the Chair of the Committee and Sir John Chilcot on the well understood test of a reasonable man. The Chair asked:

“Would a reasonable man—another human being—looking at the evidence come to that conclusion?”

Sir John Chilcot replied:

“If you are posing that question with regard to a statement of imminent threat to the United Kingdom”—

The Chair said: “I am.”

Sir John Chilcot went on:

“In that case, I have to say no, there was not sufficient evidence to sustain that belief objectively at the time.”

Given the length of time the Chilcot inquiry spent considering this exact point, it may be the opinion of many hon. Members that Sir John Chilcot’s expression of this carries rather more weight than that of hon. Members desperate to defend the indefensible.

[Mr Hanson]

Did not Sir John Chilcot, when asked this question in the Liaison Committee, say:

“I absolve him from…a decision to deceive Parliament or the public”.

We cannot have it both ways. We have had the Chilcot report and parliamentary accountability: Chilcot said that the former Prime Minister did not deceive this House or the public.

[Alex Salmond]

The trouble with that intervention is that the right hon. Gentleman does not go on to read the next sentence in that exchange, which I shall read for his erudition:

“However, he also exercised his very considerable powers of advocacy and persuasion, rather than laying the real issues, and the information to back the analysis of them, fairly and squarely in front of Parliament or the public. It was an exercise in advocacy, not an exercise in sharing a crucial judgment”.