This was an issue that was of concern. We measured in place to rehabilitate lenders, which is why the work done by previous just the secretaries and continued by the current justice secretary is so important. By the prisoners who were released. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny if there have been any official conversations given nigel virage peace . [laughter] all i can say is such matters are normally never discussed in public. Graham evans. Will my right honorable friend, the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the announcement from crude to Manchester Airport bringing jobs and prosperity to the Northwest Region including north wales closing the northbound side. My honorable friend champions this for a long time, absolutely right, i welcome the announcement on this. The Big Decisions help support the economy and crucially to support the economy in the part of the country he represents. The relationship between the uk and the republic of ireland over the years. Both have enjoyed that within these, both joined in 1973. The uk voted to leave the european union, the Prime Minister assure us there are no extra barriers, that could threaten trade, threaten tourism and threaten our special relationship. The honorable gentleman refers to the Free Movement in places like 1973, started 50 years earlier. For some considerable time, what existed but i will repeat what i said before when asked about this issue, we are working with the republic of ireland, very clear we dont want to see a return to the borders of the past, we want to ensure we recognize the importance of those movements for people on both sides of the border. [inaudible conversations] your an cspan2 we leave the british house of commons for other business. We have been watching Prime Ministers question time airing live on wednesdays at 7 am eastern when parliament is in session but a quick reminder you can see this we session again sunday night at 9 00 eastern and pacific on cspan. For more information go to cspan. Org and click on series to review every program for the british house of commons since october 1989. And your comments about Prime Ministers questions via twitter with hashtag pmq. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies has been brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. A joint Committee Investigating fibers of the security of electronic and internet devices. We take you there live at 10 00 eastern. A 7year investigation into the uk decision to follow the us into the iraq war culminated in july. Questions from british lawmakers earlier this month. And london this is 21 2 hours. Order, order, thank you for coming here this afternoon. This is one of the most important inquiries on the table. For a very long time in this country causing great distress to families of those who were killed or wounded being in iraq of great cost to the country. Many feel the cost is still there now. It has taken a long time, what happened and why. That is why they are here today. And of particular interest. And the launch of the report. And the reference that may have been, at the heart of the matter, the first line, the question for the inquiry, right and necessary to invade iraq. It might be help to concentrate on the necessary. And illegal aspect. In your view, in some, did we need to go to an imminent threat . In march 2003, my shortest possible okay. The next question must be was the evidence in front of tony blair at that time, should have told him he did not need to go to war at that time. What was clear from the evidence we have seen, the evidence we have taken in march 2003, there was no imminent strategy to british citizens or britain itself from saddams regime in iraq. Tony blair concluded there was. It would be difficult to base that on hard evidence. It is perfectly true there was a great deal of advice, and the Intelligence Community. The situation regarding saddams weapons of mass destruction was much more of a threat, much more imminent, much more serious, that proved to be the case after the event. You look at the evidence in detail. You told me you concluded that evidence showed there was not a threat. Even at its highest, the threat couldnt be shown to be imminent, commonly understood. I miss the opening. And accepted in International Law and international relations. What seems clear from the evidence, any threat in the future, not directly against the United Kingdom and its people. That is as far as the evidence takes you, many places may pose a threat at any time. Those threats are not imminent with what is going on at the time. The British Government at the time made clear it regarded participation of military action in iraq. Only a last resort. And only after other options and the question we have to look at, was this the last resort or would containment have been improved and sustained, it would have to be adjusted to rising doubts about aspects, and had all other options, in other words the inspections process came to a halt because of construction of making too many difficulties. It was not a last word. I would like to come back to the phrase imminent threat. Back to the question i asked. The evidence did not support the conclusion that there was an imminent threat at the time we went to war. Indeed. Acknowledged a year later in 2004 that he accepted it was not an imminent threat. I dont want to put words in your mouth, just trying to get clarification. The Prime Minister should have done that. When the Prime Minister said on 18 march, the threat is real, a real and present danger to british security. The threat is serious and current, saddam has to be stopped. He wasnt in fact reflecting the advice or the information in front of him. He is telling the public by those two words. It is in the report. On 17 march mister blair was advised by the chairman of the joint Intelligence Committee, saddam had weapons of mass destruction and means to deploy them and the means to produce. If you convert that into advice that wasnt a threat you could just about defend it. Are you defending it . No. You are saying there was no imminent threat. It could come back. You are saying there was no threat and tony blair was wrong to describe this threat effectively. Choosing words as carefully as i can, the description to the house in that speech, which speech was made in advocates terms, the best possible inflection on the description that he used. It doesnt take hindsight to demonstrate two propositions. One in terms of the community not only in the United Kingdom, but strongly of the belief, they brought intelligence to support it. They had weapons of mass destruction, what wasnt i thinking there . Was evidence that he intended to deploy them against the United Kingdom. Otherwise as a last resort of the invasion. As far as i can tell, it was not reasonable for tony blair to suppose there was a threat based on the information in front of him. Quoting from his september dossier, his belief was that was the situation. What was not said in the dossier and parliamentary speeches, the altercations and conditions. With statements made certainly by the cabinet. You are saying it was unreasonable. I would never not use that debate. I am asking you, a binary state of affairs. A very well understood concept and in common parlance was not reasoning. If you place yourself in the position it the time, 20022003 there was enough advice coming forward not perhaps to support the statement of the threat to the United Kingdom that the interest was imminent but the threat might be thought to exist. There was not such a threat in fact or in the event and supporting it. That is not what you are talking about at all. Every question concerns the evidence of tony blair at the time he made his statement so i repeat the question. Was it reasonable at that time that he made the statement to suppose there was a threat . Subjectively i cant answer. You mean he might have had a sudden rush to the head armada misjudgment . Is that what subjective means in this context . It is addressed to reporters. His certain belief at the time. You ask an object a question. And is that what is supported . I asked a question testing whether it is well understood, the test of a reasonable man. A reasonable man, another human being looking at that comes back. If you posed that question with regard to a statement of imminent threat to the United Kingdom, i have to say there was not sufficient evidence to sustain that at the time. So he misled or set aside evidence in order to leave the house down the line of thought and belief with his speech, didnt he . You force me to try to draw a distinction between what mister blair as Prime Minister believed at the time. Whether it is reasonable. As things turned out we know it was not as things appeared at the time, appeared to support it, was more qualified, in effect gave expression to those. It was more qualified. This is a test of what a reasonable man concludes, this evidence supported going toward. On the face of it, that seems an easier question for me to answer. I want to move on to another question, several colleagues wanting to chip in. I am concerned we might be here for a long time if they do but on this occasion, i am going to bring in bernard. Thank you, chairman. Which do you think is more in the forefront of the Prime Ministers mind . Was it to evaluate the evidence or make the case to make the decision that he had already made . I find that a very helpful question, a clear and unqualified one. It is a clear and unqualified one. It was the 2nd and on the 1st. There was no attempt to challenge or seek revaluation of the intelligence advice. Okay, julia . You made it clear that you think he exaggerated the certainty of his knowledge but if he had just said to the house, we dont know for certain, but there is a strong risk that he has these auto weapons and go on what i remember him saying to the house namely that the nightmare scene snare yo was that saddam, for his own reasons, might make such weapons available to a terrorist group with bhom he shared a common enemy, would that have been the act of a reasonable man or an unreasonable man . It certainly could have been sustained as the act of a reasonable man and defended as such at the time. Lets take you on to nuclear we weapons. Yes. The reason i take you to Nuclear Weapons rather than weapons of mass destruction, i think you would agree nuclear are an order of magnitude more dangerous than anything so far that have been produced in the cw or bw field. Yep. And certainly might have been available to saddam at it seems pretty clear, this was in the dossier, that it would take five years, even if sanctions were removed for weapons to be produced. In any case the sanctions were recently effective. Sancti there was no indication or evidence towards a resumption of the program which up and close down in the mid 1990s. As you point out a new report, numerous other countries werer well ahead in trying to get hold of Nuclear Weapons, including g iran, north korea and libya, all which post higher levels of threat. In that same speech, the Prime Minister said that saddam was actively trying to obtain material to enable enrichment o uranium. You said at paragraph 840 of your summary there was no program to develop Nuclear Weapons. Have you establish whether it is reasonable on the basis of the evidence that has been given time for tony blair to assert that saddam could obtain Nuclear Weapons within months . No. Why not . Because there was no evidence of an active program in the sense of installations for the design, manufacture and distribution of Nuclear Weapons through weapons delivery systems. There was nothing to support that and hadnt been since 19901991. There was a fear based on history and of the places i think in the Intelligence Community not least, the from the dismissal of the inspectors are maroc in 1998 there might have been something going on bui it was not more than that. So tony blair shouldnt have said that either, should he . To assert that there was a Nuclear Weapons program in training went beyond any evidence that i see. And so to tell us that we were vulnerable to an attack from Nuclear Weapons within months was misleading, wasntns it . Within months would not have been sustainable on the evidence. It wouldve had to be a number of years. People differ between would a reasonable man have been misled by the . Been again, i think the only answer could be no. Of greece moment would not have been misled by the primaryt saying that Prime Minister singh that saddam could obtain Nuclear Weapons within months . Im sorry. I heard your question the other way around. If he had said that the was a risk the rising over the years ahead that saddam had an intent which we try to carry through if sanctions were lifted or if he could im sorry to interrupt but he said he had the capacity to obtain Nuclear Weapons within months. Yes. That was not so at the time. I dont know what he based that statement on in terms of evidence. Have you seen any evidence to support that statement to justify the action of the Prime Minister in the house that they . Not that there was a nearterm prospect of saddam acquiring, therefore being able to threaten the use of nuclearfi weapons. So that was a no, i think we will examine nearterm in just a moment. Nearterm means not eminently. Yes. One last area of cross of examination i would like to touch on this is the relationship between nuclearnd weapons and terrorism. Was it wrong to accuse the terrorists and the wider Nuclear Threat posed by saddam . I think of more or less answered that in the report by which is like a clarification. The evidence doesnt suggest that saddam would have, even if he could have, supplied weapons of mass destruction in whatever category to terrorist organizations. At paragraph 324 you say that there was no basis in the gic assessments to support it. I think youre pretty much answered in the same way. The so in mr. Blairs speech on the 18th of march 2003 said that those two things together, and im quoting, i real and present danger to britain. He didnt have the evidence for that either, did he . No. Fusion was a concept shared by others including in the United States, but not evidenced by any action on the ground. So it was a reasonable for him to set up either, was a . You invite me to agree to the same criteria and being applied. I am only applying a test which millions of people will readily understand and which isl used in court of law up and down the land everyday. Indeed, it is inquiry, im going to repeat myself later i suspect, was not a court of law. It is a court of public opinion. It was a court only of the opinion of the committee and evidence that it took from witnesses to the committee and representations of all sorts and sources. I think its important to emphasize that it was not a court. It didnt proceed with that purpose in mind. I i think quite rightly evidence so far has been its been helpful and clear. I you have given thorough answers, more decisive answers that were provided in your statement and particularly in the executive summary. Nd more i just want to clarify one final point before passing questioning on. I havent got the exact words in front of me, you say that trust in british politics has been eroded by the events that unfolded at that time and after that time, and that its damage that lasts to this day. You use a phrase to that effect as well. Isnt the most damaging thing about this whole sorry episode that a number of very important things were said to the house at the time which to a reasonable man could not reasonably be supported by the evidence at the time the statement was made, atd that that is what concord of the corroded the trust . I think when a government or the leader of the government presents a case with all the powers of advocacy that he or she can command and in doing so goes beyond what the facts of the case and the basic analysis of the facts can support, that it does damage politics, yes. And may take a long time to repair. I can only imagine it will. Were very grateful to you for your part and try to help effect the repair and thats what this report has been about. Crispin blunt. Sir john, before i get into the substance of the inquirer ir and the lessons to be learnedd from it, could we reflect on your experience of the top of inquiry you have carried out . F out. Whilst you completed your work the Foreign Affairs committee was undertaking inquiry to libya, and i was conscious that i was going to wait for the publication of your report in order to reflect some of your Lessons Learned and conclusions in our report and ill come to those in a minute, but i believe a select committee of the house with 14,500odd words in the report, a years work probably around 13,000 pounds worth of extra costs, given our travel budgets and doing the various inquiries, then produced something that was not historic policy of 2. 6 Million Words and the costs and the length of your inquiry i hope would have actually got rather closer and rather firmer conclusions in the report than the size and scope of your inquiry produced. I just, four reflection on the task were set and the inquiry team and how fair or unfair the terms of reference were and the task you assess, and the completing, perha competing, perhaps the competin