by Chris Mullin
In the afternoon, while Dad snored loudly on the sofa and Ngoc chatted to Mum, Emma played with the toy soldiers that survived my childhood. Some of the medieval knights are quite sophisticated, with detachable swords, spears, visors and so on. It must be forty years or more since I last handled them.
* In the late 1970s the Americans, anxious to justify a hugely expanded chemical warfare programme, tried to convince allies that the communists were spraying the hilltribes in northern Laos with a new and deadly form of chemical weapon, which they dubbed yellow rain. Great effort was put into convincing sceptics, but no hard evidence was ever produced. Once the programme was agreed, however, no more was ever heard of yellow rain. See Grant Evans, The Yellow Rainmakers, Verso (1983).
* A wholly synthetic row sparked by the spurious allegation that Tony Blair had lobbied for a more prominent seat.
* Appointed Lord Chief Justice in July 2008.
* In 1964 the US invented an attack by Vietnamese gunboats on a US warship in order to justify the bombing of North Vietnam.
CHAPTER FIVE
2003
Wednesday, 1 January 2003
Brixton Road
I cut the accursed leylandii hedge in the back garden, cleared the drains and put out the three weeks’ rubbish that had accumulated in my absence (apart from Keith on the third floor, who has been ill recently, I am the only one who puts out the bins). Then to Streatham for dinner with a friend of Ngoc’s, an interpreter, who had spent most of the day at Heathrow helping immigration officials interview asylum seekers. She says the whole thing is a scam. Agents or facilitators travel to Vietnam with passports borrowed from Vietnamese who already have British citizenship, which are used to smuggle illegal immigrants onto planes bound for Europe; once on the plane the facilitator collects up the passports and when they arrive at Heathrow they simply pronounce the magic word ‘asylum’. When asked why they want to come to England they always reply, as they have been taught to, ‘because Britain respects human rights’. Today’s arrivals, coffee farmers from the central highlands, had been charged US$12,000 a head. They, or their relatives, won’t have to pay until they are safely in the UK. The ‘agency’ concerned guarantees a safe passage to the European country of choice within twenty days. She is amazed that we tolerate it. Why don’t we just send them back? And, if we must let them in, why don’t we allow them to work, so that at least we will reduce the burden on the state? Most, she points out, are going to work illegally anyway.
Saturday, 4 January
Sunderland
Awoke late, to a light dusting of snow. Making my way into town through the park I found the little bridge across the old railway cutting taped off although there was no apparent obstacle and people were stepping under the tape and carrying on anyway. Eventually a short, stout, middle-aged man, wearing shaded glasses, a peaked cap and a Securicor uniform emerged from the cabin by the bowling green, bawling and shouting. I asked what the problem was and he said he had fenced off the bridge because people might slip and sue the Council. ‘With all due respect,’ I said, ‘this is daft. Why not just put down some salt?’
‘Not my job,’ he said. ‘In any case I haven’t got any.’
‘Tell you what,’ I said, ‘why don’t I buy some in town and give it to you on the way back and then you can spread it.’
‘Not my job,’ he repeated. He added almost pleasantly, ‘Someone will probably tear down that tape in the next ten minutes, then I’ll have to close the whole park.’
In town I came across Dennis McDonald and good old Sam Glatt, soliciting signatures on a petition against war with Iraq. ‘Sign here if you oppose Blair’s war,’ Denis was shouting. A trickle of people, mainly middle class, obliged but as with all other forms of political activity in Sunderland the prevailing sentiment was indifference. I declined to sign, but told Sam that I won’t support any war which is not endorsed by the UN Security Council.
Wednesday, 8 January
To the House in a snow storm. Brixton Road looked almost beautiful under a carpet of virgin snow.
A long talk in the Tea Room with Jack Cunningham, who has been charged with sorting through the various possibilities for Lords reform. His committee has just reported, coming up with a list of eight options ranging from wholly appointed to wholly elected, from which we will shortly be invited to choose. Jack said that, in his opinion, the Upper House should have strictly limited powers and be wholly appointed; an independent appointments commission should be set up whose remit would include ensuring that membership reflected gender, ethnicity, age, regionality. In addition, as is already more or less the case, certain public office holders – ex-Cabinet ministers, senior judges, churchmen, the chiefs of staff and the like – would automatically qualify for a place. Finally, a percentage of appointments would be reserved for the prime minister of the day to ensure that he had enough qualified ministers. Membership would not be for life, but for a set period – one or two terms of seven years? The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. After all, it is not as though the public are demanding any more elected politicians. On the contrary, most people think we have far too many already – and they may not be wrong about that.
Much of the discussion at the parliamentary committee was taken up with Iraq. ‘What happens after the inspectors report on January 27th?’ asked Gordon Prentice. The Man was at pains to assure us that there was no immediate threat of war. ‘The inspectors have only just begun their work. They are only just up to their full complement. A lot of attention is being paid to the 27th, as though it is a red letter day. It isn’t.’
‘I have written you a letter,’ Helen Jackson said.
‘You and Prince Charles,’ smiled The Man.
‘What’s our strategy in the event of the UN not endorsing action?’ she asked.
‘If the inspectors don’t make a breakthrough, then we’ve just got to go on. It’s not impossible that Arab leaders will put pressure on Saddam to go.’
‘I don’t think Bush will go it alone,’ said Robin Cook. ‘He is not going to ignore public opinion in the US and, surprisingly, it is showing that most Americans are against unilateral action.’
‘A lot of people believe that Bush has made his mind up. They don’t trust him,’ said Doug Hoyle.
‘My position,’ said The Man, ‘is that there is no doubt that we have to take a stand against weapons of mass destruction and that it has got to be done through the international community. It’s got to be done the right way.’
‘Supposing the inspectors find nothing?’ I asked.
‘For us to justify action, there has to be a breach of a UN resolution. The UN route means there is a process. Things have to be found to demonstrate a material breach.’
‘How long do the inspectors have?’
‘I don’t know, but they think there are massive gaps in the December 8 declaration and they are reasonably confident that they will find something. The question is, will Saddam have a change of mind first?’
‘If Saddam did level with us, is it conceivable that there will be no war?’
‘Yes, though I think Saddam will miscalculate.’ He added that the Egyptian leaders, to whom he had talked over the New Year, were in no doubt that Saddam was hiding something and that the outcome over Iraq would have an impact on the situation in Korea, which he described as ‘absolutely terrifying’.
The House packed up after the votes at seven. By eight there was hardly anyone to be seen. The Tea Room, which would normally be full at this time on a Wednesday evening, was empty save for a handful of Scotsmen. The oxygen is being sucked out of the place, thanks to Robin’s reform of the sitting hours. The entire evening economy is collapsing.
Thursday, 9 January
The lead story in the Guardian is that 100 Labour MPs are threatening rebellion over Iraq and that there would be resignations, at least among junior ministers, in the event of a unilateral attack. An unnamed Cabinet minister is quoted as saying that not one of the Cabin
et is in favour of going to war at this moment. The report also says that ‘concern was conveyed to Tony Blair yesterday by members of the parliamentary committee’. The Deputy Chief Whip, Keith Hill, whispered that Hilary Armstrong believes Robin Cook to be the source and that he is out to show her up because of her lack of enthusiasm for some of his reforms. Keith agrees with the Guardian’s estimate of the potential rebellion (I told him to include me in that) and says it is potentially the party’s biggest crisis in living memory. He added, however, that he believes the chances of a war have receded for the time being at least.
David Blunkett has at last announced that he is raising from 14 to 17 the age at which air weapons can be used without supervision; also, there will be a presumption against carrying either air weapons or replicas in public. A little victory for civilisation over barbarism in which I can claim to have played a part. Until I sent my memo to The Man, we were getting nowhere with the Home Office.
Monday, 13 January
Dinner with David Blunkett in the Members’ Dining Room. On Iraq, David thinks there will be a war and that Tony will back the Americans come what may. I asked if he thought that Gordon and Clare were preparing to take over if it all went wrong and he said he was sure they are.
Tuesday, 14 January
With the Home Affairs Committee to the immigration detention centre at Harmondsworth, near Heathrow, the last stop for asylum seekers who have reached the end of the line; it is also the last stop for criminals and other undesirables awaiting deportation – 19,000 people passed through last year. The staff were at pains to assure us that the centre is well run – and it is. Everything was provided for, except freedom. We were shown a little room where children plucked from classrooms around the country spend their last few days on British soil before being dispatched to goodness-knows-where. On the wall outside were little notes tapped out on computers by children who had passed through. ‘Oh look, there’s one from Sunderland,’ someone said and, sure enough, there was. It was Sasha, the little chap whose family I failed to rescue last year. It read (in part):
My name is Sasha Savchenko. I am twelve years old. I come from the Ukraine.
I live at 12 Gray Road, Sunderland. I speak four languages.
My favourite toy is Pokemon cards.
When last heard of he and his parents were in a hostel in southern Spain.
The Evening Standard has published my article on the need to stand up to the demands of the aviation industry. It has also prompted a friendly leading article. It won’t be popular with the regime, but I’ve been dying to get that off my chest.
Wednesday, 15 January
To a jam-packed meeting of the parliamentary party, which the media has been billing as a showdown between The Man and his critics on Iraq. He looked tired and strained, as well he might – under the new arrangements Prime Minister’s Questions follow on almost directly from the party meeting. A lot to expect that he does both in one morning. In the event, he hardly mentioned Iraq in his opening remarks saying only, ‘I hope the UN process works and I believe that it will do so.’ For the rest he talked of the domestic agenda – the economy, public services, asylum, law and order. Even so, most of the points from the floor were about Iraq. There were a couple of loyalists – Stuart Bell and George Mudie. ‘The Prime Minister knows best. Trust him. Full stop. That’s what we should be saying,’ said George. If only life were that simple. ‘I applaud the way you have led us so far,’ said Joan Ruddock, ‘but we must side with the UN.’ Anne Campbell, who represents Cambridge, said she was finding it difficult to hold her local party together: ‘What will happen if the inspectors find nothing?’ she asked. ‘Do not join a unilateral attack,’ said Glenda Jackson. The Man responded robustly. ‘The question is, do weapons of mass destruction matter? I believe they do. If George Bush wasn’t raising the issue, I would be. There is a link between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. At some point terrorists are going to get hold of them. The issue has to be faced. We have had 11 years of UN resolution on Iraq. Of course, the best way is through the UN, but the inspectors wouldn’t be in Iraq if pressure hadn’t been put on. If we take away the pressure, there will never be a peaceful resolution. The only circumstances in which Saddam will co-operate is if he thinks we are serious.’
He went on, ‘If the inspectors say Saddam is not co-operating, I hope there is no one who will not accept that the UN has to enforce its will. The consequences of not enforcing are horrendous. I believe there will be a second resolution, but I do not want to give anyone the impression that our will is lacking.’ He sat down to thunderous applause. With one leap he was free – for the time being at least.
Later I spoke to Michael White of the Guardian who has been talking to some of The Man’s American friends. Michael says he has more influence in Washington than any other non-American. ‘The fact that he was willing to go that extra mile after September 11 and that his advice that Bush should go to the UN won plaudits is money in the bank. The fact is, however, that no British prime minister can afford to fall out with the President. The last one who did was Anthony Eden and look what happened to him.’
Iraq surfaced again at the parliamentary committee. The Man said, ‘The message we are getting from inside Iraq is that we should concentrate on regime change. The one advantage of the hard rhetoric that George Bush is using is that it is fracturing the Iraqi leadership.’
Someone remarked that an invasion would set the Arab world against us. Not so, said The Man. ‘The Arabs aren’t saying don’t do it. They are saying, do it quickly.’
Supposing a second UN resolution was vetoed, someone asked.
The Man replied, ‘If you say that you will accept a veto, you increase the possibility that someone – Russia perhaps – will use it irresponsibly. They’ve got to believe we’re serious.’ He added, ‘We’ve got a process. Given a chance I believe it will work properly. If it doesn’t, there will be some very tricky decisions to take.’
Gordon Prentice asked what we were going to do about North Korea. ‘Iraq is the first test of whether the world is serious or not,’ The Man responded. ‘If we pass, North Korea will be easier to deal with.’
There was a discussion about asylum. I inquired about the suggestion, being peddled assiduously in the Murdoch and Harmsworth press, that EU enlargement would lead to a huge new wave of migration. Robin Cook said the same argument had been made when Spain and Portugal joined, but it had come to nothing. Anyway, he added, there were transition arrangements to deal with eastern Europe. The Man said he was very worried. The asylum issue was bubbling away beneath the surface. It was not true that we were taking more asylum seekers than anyone else in Europe. Numbers in Germany were rising again and there were no reliable figures for France and Italy. John Reid said that the English language and the fact that we had a relatively strong economy were the two major attractions.
‘Might there come a day’ I inquired, ‘when we might have to consider resiling from the UN Conventions?’
‘I don’t want to say that,’ said The Man, ‘but the situation is very difficult.’
Monday, 20 January
The tabloids are working themselves up into a frenzy. ‘Widow, 88, told by GP: make way for asylum seekers,’ rages yesterday’s Mail on Sunday. ‘Asylum hotels revolt,’ proclaims today’s Express. It goes on: ‘Fury mounts over plans for refugees to enjoy life of luxury in country hotels.’ Meanwhile the Sun, under its evil new editor Rebekah Wade, is running a series of shit-stirring reports subheaded ‘Asylum Meltdown’. ‘Read this and get angry’ is the headline over today’s dose of poison, as if Sun readers need yet another reason to be angry. Before long we shall have mobs of shaven-headed Sun and Express vigilantes laying siege to the homes of terrified asylum seekers, just as we did with alleged paedophiles a few months ago. What are we going to do about this tabloid virus?
To a dinner hosted by the journalists and broadcasting unions, to discuss what can be done about the Communications Bill which i
s threatening to deliver ITN into the hands of the Americans and Channel Five into the hands of Murdoch. Those present included David Puttnam, Duke Hussey and Tom McNally from the Lords, and John Grogan, Nick Harvey, Austin Mitchell and Terry Rooney from the Commons. ‘A step towards the Berlusconisation of the British media,’ said Puttnam. Number 10, he said, was desperately naive. If Murdoch got his hands on Channel Five he would use his other interests to cross-promote it and destroy Channel Four. ‘The Tories invented Channel Four. Does Labour really want on its gravestone that they destroyed it?’ He added that, in contrast to the Press Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Agency was so good that the standard of the advertisements in most newspapers was better than the editorial content.
Tom McNally said, ‘If giving Murdoch 40 per cent of our print media, our only satellite broadcaster and a major foothold in terrestrial TV isn’t against the public interest, what is?’
Someone described Murdoch as an elephant. ‘He’s not an elephant,’ said Duke Hussey. ‘He’s an alligator. I know Rupert very well. I like him. He is a genius, a very dangerous genius. He should not be given Channel Five.’
There was some discussion about possible amendments in the Lords. The problem is that the Tories are backing the government. I was seated next to an elderly Tory peer who intervened every five minutes to say that whatever we did we should keep it simple and that, in any case, it was all hopeless.
Tuesday, 21 January
To Portcullis House for the Liaison Committee’s biennial joust with The Man. He, alone at one end of the horseshoe, sans jacket, sans officials, elbows on desk, fingers touching lightly below his chin. This is a formula at which he excels. His only props, a single blank sheet of paper, a bottle of water and a glass. The paper was still blank when he left two and a half hours later. The entire session was devoted to Iraq. We each took turns. Mostly it was a ritual. He has thought it all through. There is nothing he hasn’t been asked ten times already. Several people – John Horam, Edward Leigh, Tony Wright – got briefly under the wire, but mostly he was unruffled. ‘You tell me what we have got out of this?’ whispered Gerald Kaufman (who is cynical about the whole exercise).