Loyalist Hoon points finger at Blair
By Jean Eaglesham and Bob Sherwood
(Geoff.. That is not the way to save your career. No one will hire you now... You must of done that for altruistic reasons... We are also down to dissecting emails... wow the cyber stocks of the modern age. Now where's my rotten fruits... I need to check my aim -g- pb)
news.ft.com
Geoff Hoon "going, going, gone," predicted protestors' placards waved at the defence secretary as he entered the Royal Courts of Justice. Mr Hoon's performance at the Hutton inquiry on Wednesday suggested he was determined to do whatever was necessary to avoid the demonstrators' forecast coming true.
The defence secretary is a lawyer, as well as a Blairite loyalist. His evidence owed more to the former than the latter career, with Mr Hoon offering up the political equivalent of a string of alibis, stressing his absence from the scene of the key decisions. His apparent anxiety to shift the blame placed his boss firmly in the frame.
Tony Blair will on Thursday face Lord Hutton knowing that one of his closest cabinet allies has implicated Downing Street in all the core decisions relating to the handling of David Kelly - the issue at the heart of the inquiry.
The prime minister and his aides were a constant presence in the defence secretary's carefully-crafted justification for the strategy to put Mr Kelly's existence into the public domain.
Did Mr Hoon know that No 10 was involved in drafting his own department's press release relating to Mr Kelly? "I was not directly aware of that, but it would not be a particular surprise given the involvement of Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in these events," he told the inquiry.
Did the plan for Mr Hoon to write to the BBC naming Mr Kelly originate from No 10? "Yes." Was Mr Hoon at the key meeting that decided to effect this plan? "No . . . simply, I was given a message to the effect that it was now appropriate for me to write to the chairman of the [BBC] governors."
Had No 10 written the letter that they ordered him to send? "I accept there would almost certainly have been some discussions between Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence about what should go in the letter."
The impression that Mr Hoon was willing to do Downing Street's bidding may speak volumes for his loyalty at that stage. But his willingness to stress No 10's lead role to the inquiry will be less welcomed by Mr Blair. The civil service is also unlikely to cheer his performance.
Mr Hoon implied that any responsibility for Mr Kelly's outing that did not rest with No 10 resided instead with Sir Kevin Tebbit, the top official at the MoD. "As far as any personnel issues were concerned, the responsibility was clearly that of the permanent secretary," the defence secretary said.
Sir Kevin's "personnel" role meant that Mr Hoon was effectively exonerated from any responsibility for Mr Kelly's treatment. "The MoD was the lead department as far as dealing with Dr Kelly on a personnel basis . . . as far as the department were concerned, then I was concerned that the permanent secretary should look at that matter," he said.
Asked if he had decided what to do in relation to Mr Kelly, the defence secretary gave an unequivocal negative. "I did not decide because it has always been my practice, in the MoD, to ensure that appropriate responsibilities are dealt with by appropriate people," Mr Hoon said.
These "appropriate responsibilities" extended to the decision to use Mr Kelly in the government's political battle with the BBC. Mr Hoon told the inquiry that it had been Sir Kevin who suggested that the "management process" of dealing with Mr Kelly could help to set the record straight.
The judge intervened in apparent perplexity at this allocation of responsibility. "Was correcting the public record a personnel matter?" Lord Hutton asked. Mr Hoon said that "as far as Sir Kevin was concerned, it was important to the MoD and indeed to the government as a whole that the public record should be corrected".
Mr Hoon's attempt to deflect blame may not be enough to salvage his political career. Opposition politicians on Wednesday claimed the defence secretary had to carry the can for his own department. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative former defence secretary, claimed Mr Hoon was in a "very difficult position" unless he could show that MoD press officers had disobeyed his instructions.
But Mr Hoon's performance also significantly increases the pressure on Mr Blair. The prime minister indicated before the inquiry began that he would accept any blame apportioned to the MoD or his own aides by Lord Hutton, saying: "In the end, the government is my responsibility." Mr Blair will today have to justify how that responsibility was met in the case of Mr Kelly.
The prime minister will have to explain why he personally expended so much time and energy on the battle with the BBC. Did Downing Street allow a vendetta against the corporation to override consideration for the scientist's welfare? Mr Hoon's effective abdication of responsibility for the naming strategy means Mr Blair can expect to be questioned closely on his personal involvement in Mr Kelly's outing.
The prime minister will also be quizzed on e-mails revealed by the inquiry which suggest he personally believed Mr Kelly had to face a public grilling by the parliamentary select committee.
Mr Blair will also be called to account for the broader issue of the government's dossier. Why did the prime minister tell MPs that it showed Saddam Hussein was a current threat when an e-mail from his own chief of staff said precisely the opposite? |
