Should MPs be asking the questions?

20 July 2011 Last updated at 16:22 GMT Oxford West and Abingdon MP Nicola Blackwood poses the questions They are called witnesses. And in cross-examining Rupert Murdoch and senior Scotland Yard detectives, MPs have turned their select committees into the most dramatic of inquisitorial chambers.

But is it really a job we should be giving to our elected representatives? Are they up to the task? And how much of the power of these exchanges come from the televising of hearings?

Oxford West and Abingdon Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood was only elected at the last election and says she never expected to find a place on the powerful Home Affairs Committee within a year of reaching parliament.

She says that it has been "a steep learning curve".

Huge media attention

The eyes of the world followed her questions to the Met Police Chief Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates before and after their dramatic resignations.

These hardened policemen were used to difficult interviews, though usually trying to extract their own confessions from suspects.

And the committee's exchanges were being broadcast live on rolling news channels, in this country and abroad.

"Be you ever so high you have to account to the people”

End Quote Nicola Blackwood MP Oxford West & Abingdon

Miss Blackwood says the committee were well aware of the attention.

"You're aware of the attention, because the room was packed, but I honestly did forget the cameras, especially when you get to the heart of the questioning."

What about the way Chairman Keith Vaz cut off some inquiries mid-flow, moving questioning around the room?

"You are under a lot of time pressure, because every one of the committee members wants to pursue their own line of enquiry."

The public's representatives

There had been criticism of earlier hearings for not asking sharp enough questions, or following up lines of enquiry.

The "Hacked-off" campaign group is advised by the Liberal Democrat campaigner for free speech Dr Evan Harris, who lost the Oxford West & Abingdon constituency to Conservative Blackwood at the last election.

Dr Harris has been calling for Lord Justice Leveson's enquiry, asking questions under oath, to start work even before the second police investigation is complete, saying "We see no legal requirement for this to wait until after police enquiries. To do so could damage its ability to get to the truth."

Nicola Blackwood agrees that the full public inquiry will bring a forensically detailed look at the evidence, but insists the MPs inquiries have their place.

"We are asking questions as non-experts, as representatives of the public.

"You can't prepare those questions in advance because you can't always anticipate the way that the discussion will go."

As a result of the scrutiny that started at the Home Affairs Committee both policemen have now resigned, acknowledging serious misjudgements.

Quick reporting Sir Paul Stephenson: "I regret that we went into that contract... because it's embarrassing"

The committee's report was produced within 24 hours, after the 11 MPs sat all day hearing evidence.

At one point in their discussions they were interrupted by sirens and shouting in the next door room as the police dealt with the custard pie interruption to Rupert Murdoch's evidence.

Ms Blackwood says they were determined to get their enquiry completed.

"All those witnesses came at very short notice, and it was very impressive that we were able to get our report out so quickly."

"I know there are other big issues - people losing their jobs, the Euro zone and famine in Africa, but I've had more than 400 e-mails and letters about phone hacking - people wanted answers on these important questions."

"And be you ever so high, you have to account to the people."

View the original article here

Kelly questions

9 June 2011 Last updated at 16:32 GMT Dr Kelly was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on government claims about Iraq's weapons The government has rejected calls for an inquest into the 2003 death of government scientist Dr David Kelly.

Who was Dr David Kelly?

In 2003, weapons expert Dr David Kelly was thrust into the media spotlight after being identified in newspapers as the man the government believed was the source for a controversial BBC report on Iraq.

The scientist was used to talking to journalists behind the scenes but he now became a key figure in the row between the government and the BBC over claims Downing Street had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons capability.

The BBC report, in May 2003, cast doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being deployed within 45 minutes.

After he was named in newspapers, Dr Kelly gave evidence to MPs' committees in which he said he did not believe he was the main source of the story.

Two days after his testimony, the 59-year-old was found dead in woodland a few miles from his Oxfordshire home after apparently taking his own life.

His wife Janice later told the inquiry into his death that her husband had been utterly dismayed by the media frenzy around him.

Dr Kelly had spent the majority of his career as a consultant to the MoD and other government departments and agencies, advising them on his area of expertise - arms control.

He had worked as a weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, following the first Gulf War, earning a nomination for a Nobel peace prize.

After his death, the BBC confirmed the scientist had been its principal contact for the report claiming the Iraq dossier had been "sexed up".

What hearings have there been into his death?

On the day Dr Kelly's body was discovered, then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an urgent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death.

Unusually, the inquest opened into Dr Kelly's death was never completed.

Lord Hutton released his findings in January 2004, reporting that the scientist had committed suicide by slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

The report found that a severe loss of self-esteem for Dr Kelly, due to a feeling that people had lost trust in him and his dismay at media exposure, was probably the major factor behind him taking his own life.

Lord Hutton requested that the details of the post-mortem examination and toxicology tests be classified for 70 years - to protect the privacy of the Kelly family.

But, in October last year, the government sought to end continuing speculation over Dr Kelly's death by releasing the reports which backed up Lord Hutton's verdict.

What evidence is there for the cause of death?

The evidence released last October included the report by pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt, who had attended the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found in July 2003.

At the post-mortem examination, he found a series of wounds on Dr Kelly's left wrist which had "completely severed" the ulnar artery.

Dr Hunt reported: "The orientation and arrangement of the wounds over the left wrist are typical of self-inflicted injury."

He added: "There is no positive pathological evidence to indicate that this man has been subjected to a sustained, violent assault prior to his death.

"There is no evidence from the post-mortem or my observations at the scene to indicate that the deceased had been dragged or otherwise transported to the location at which his body was found."

The time of death was estimated to be between 1615 BST on 17 July and 0115 BST on 18 July.

While the wrist wounds were found to be the main cause of death, Dr Hunt added that an excessive amount of painkillers Dr Kelly had taken and "apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease" would both have played a part in "bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case".

Why have there been calls for an inquest?

A group of doctors have mounted a long-running campaign for the inquest into Dr Kelly's death to be re-opened, arguing that Lord Hutton's suicide verdict was unsafe.

They complain that Lord Hutton spent only half a day of his 24-day inquiry considering the cause of death and claim there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Kelly killed himself.

"No coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard," they say.

They believe Dr Kelly's wrist wounds were not likely to be life-threatening, making the official cause of death - a haemorrhage - "extremely unlikely".

They say unanswered questions surrounding the death remain, including:

why no fingerprints were found on the knife apparently used to slit his wristhow Dr Kelly obtained a packet of coproxamol painkillerswhy his blood and stomach contained only a non-toxic dose of the drugwhy he was not spotted by a police helicopter with thermal imaging cameras which flew over the wood where his body was later foundwhether he intended to kill himself

In September last year they petitioned Attorney General Dominic Grieve for the re-opening of inquiries.

It "may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice to occur in this country", the doctors said in a letter in March appealing to Prime Minister David Cameron to intervene on their behalf.

But, in June 2011, Mr Grieve rejected the doctors' petition. He said his department had thoroughly investigated their complaints and could not find any legal basis for referring the case to the High Court, which has the legal authority to order an inquest.

Why has the government not ordered an inquest?

Mr Grieve told MPs: "Having given all the material that's been sent to me the most careful consideration, I've concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong.

"Further, there is nothing I've seen that supports any allegation that Dr Kelly was murdered or that his death was the subject of any kind of conspiracy or cover-up."

There was no "evidential basis" to refer the case to the High Court, he told MPs, adding that it would have been "dismissed" by judges "with what I would assume would be a certain amount of irritation".

The attorney general argued that Lord Hutton's inquiry had been "tantamount to an inquest".

Following the government's decision, the doctors who had petitioned Mr Grieve called for his resignation.

Campaign leader Dr Stephen Frost said: "The continuing cover-up of the truth of what happened is a national disgrace and should be of concern to all British citizens."

The group will now seek to take the decision to judicial review.

View the original article here