45 minutes is a long time in politics

Published on Saturday 7 February 2004 00:00

WHAT is the 45-minute claim?

In September 2002 the government produced a dossier called Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction - the assessment of the British government setting the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The document claimed Iraq had "a useable chemical and biological weapons capability" and had "chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles".

The paper - the first of its kind ever produced by a British government - went on to say: "Iraq’s military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so."

The dossier said these could be used with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads and, with a range of 650km, could reach "the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus and NATO members Greece and Turkey, as well as all Iraq’s neighbours".

WHY has the 45-minute claim caused such controversy?

Doubts about the 45-minute claim were first raised by the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan in his now infamous broadcast on 29 May last year when he alleged that the 45-minute claim was based on a single source and had been inserted by Downing Street in the dossier even though they knew it was wrong.

Mr Gilligan’s report was later judged incorrect by Lord Hutton but subsequent revelations have shown the journalist was right to have asked questions about the 45-minute claim. The wording of the dossier was carefully crafted. Much of the subsequent newspaper coverage assumed that Saddam was capable of attacking neighbouring countries with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. But this was not the case. The 45 minutes referred only to battlefield munitions - not long-range missiles.

A report last summer by the intelligence and security committee concluded the wording of the dossier "did not precisely reflect the intelligence provided" by MI6. The committee of MPs, who saw the raw intelligence material, said the battlefield context should "have been highlighted in the dossier".

WHY is this a problem for the government?

It wasn’t until Wednesday afternoon when Tony Blair let slip in the Commons that he first became aware the 45-minute claim only referred to battlefield weapons after 18 March, the date of the Commons debate which authorised the military action. Mr Blair’s admission stunned MPs as it contrasted directly with evidence given by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, when he told the Hutton Inquiry he knew "at the time" that the 45 minutes replied to battlefield and not ballistic missiles.

Asked why he didn’t correct the misleading impression at the time, Mr Hoon replied that correcting every error in the media would have been a "time-consuming and frustrating process".

If Mr Hoon is telling the truth, it means Mr Blair had been kept in the dark about a crucial piece of information. Labour and Conservative MPs who wavered before voting in favour of the war may have voted differently if they had known that the threat posed by Saddam was less extensive that suggested by the 45-minute claim.

Alternatively, if Mr Blair is telling the truth, Mr Hoon and the intelligence services appear guilty of a dereliction of duty in not informing the Prime Minister about the changed circumstances of the evidence. Also, why did Mr Blair not question the intelligence handed to him?

WHO is telling the truth?

It is very difficult to tell. Robin Cook, the former Leader of the House, told the House this week it was difficult to reconcile his recollection of events with the Prime Minister’s assertion he did not know the 45-minute claim was misleading until after 18 March.

Mr Cook said: "I knew Iraq only had battlefield weapons because I asked the chairman of the joint intelligence committee [John Scarlett]. I have the highest respect for his professionalism. Is it not hard to credit that at no point between the September dossier and the March debate, he did not explain to the Prime Minister the crucial distinction between battlefield weapons and medium-range weapons?" However, Mr Scarlett suggested to the Hutton Inquiry Mr Blair could have been left out of loop. "There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all," he said.

WHAT is Downing Street’s explanation?

Downing Street’s first line of defence is that the 45-minute claim has only taken on importance - "totemic status" to quote the Prime Minister’s official spokesman - since Mr Gilligan’s broadcast. They point out that Mr Blair did not refer to the 45-minute claim during the 18 March debate. Geoff Hoon has even gone so far as to claim the 45-minute claim was not a "significant issue" at the time Britain went to war. Critics have argued the reason the reference was dropped was because Downing Street had been made aware of the ambiguity of the 45-minute assertion.

Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, accused critics of "nit-picking" and compared Mr Blair’s situation to that of Winston Churchill doing the Second World War. "Do you suppose Winston Churchill went round asking precisely the kind of munition they had in the Second World War, and would that have been a valuable use of his time?" she asked.

Downing Street has also argued the distinction between battlefield and long-range weapons is irrelevant. In the Commons on Wednesday, Mr Blair said the range of a weapon was less significant than its capability: "If there were chemical or biological or nuclear battlefield weapons, that most certainly would be a weapon of mass destruction and the idea that their use would not threaten the region’s stability I find somewhat eccentric."

HOW damaging has this proved?

Primarily it dashed any hopes within No 10 that the Hutton Report would draw a line under the controversy surrounding the war. One Conservative MP gloated that Labour had "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". It has also given Michel Howard, the Conservative leader, the opportunity to renew his attack on Mr Blair. Mr Howard has focused on why the Prime Minister did not follow Mr Cook’s lead and question the authenticity of the intelligence.

"I cannot imagine a more serious dereliction of duty by a Prime Minister than failing to ask that basic question," said Mr Howard, who went on to call for Mr Blair’s resignation.

WHAT happens now?

Downing Street is hoping that the public’s fatigue with the issue will see it slip down the agenda. Mr Blair’s official spokesman joked with the media yesterday that the public were starting to "nod off within 45 seconds" of reading about the 45-minute claim.

Officials also believe the Hutton report has dealt conclusively with issues of government propriety regarding WMD and the only question is whether or not the intelligence was correct. London and Washington have both announced investigations into the use of intelligence in the run-up the war. Mr Blair faces the embarrassing prospect of the US blaming British intelligence for any failures.

Furthermore, there is a risk the inquiries could throw up evidence the politicians were aware before authorising military action that the intelligence was incomplete. This would blow apart Mr Blair’s defence that he acted properly based on the intelligence which he had no reason to doubt.

The future of Mr Hoon is also in doubt. Downing Street is furious at the way he has handled the row, particularly his comments during Wednesday’s debate when pressed on why Mr Blair did not know the 45 minutes referred to battlefield weapons.

"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will speak for himself," said Mr Hoon. It was not the sort of remark on which careers are improved.