White House Rules Out Giving Evidence at British Inquiries

The Bush administration will not explain itself to any future British parliamentary inquiry in a ruling that has angered MPs and peers.

Tam Dalyell, the father of the house, and an opponent of a war in Iraq, described the US decision as self-defeating and foolish. "I do not know what America thinks it is going to achieve if it treats its most loyal ally with such contempt," he said.

"The Americans need to put their case, yet they are not prepared to test their arguments on the anvil of serious inquiry."

David Chidgey, a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, also described the US decision as a mistake.

He said: "This is extremely unusual. We have always had extremely good relations with our American counterparts in New York and Washington. If they are worried by litigation, their evidence would be covered by parliamentary privilege."

The US refusal to give evidence to any British or foreign parliament has only just been publicised in an annex to a Lords report on globalisation.

The peers had asked for evidence from the Bush administration on the impact of globalisation, but instead received a letter from Glyn Davies, the deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, rejecting the request.

He wrote: "Our lawyers have made it clear that going on the record before the legislative branch of another government is extremely difficult for us.

"If we were to agree to do so on one occasion, we would find ourselves obliged to do so whenever we were asked.

"We therefore need to be extremely cautious in taking actions that would seem to set a precedent".

Mr Davies conceded that the US government had given such evidence in the past. But he said: "It is largely because of the increase in requests of this sort that my authorities have decided to draw the line, albeit reluctantly."

He said that the broad nature of an inquiry into the possible benefits of globalisation made it more difficult for the US to "explain its stance in a way that could not be misinterpreted or taken out of context by those that read the report".

Donald Anderson, the chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, said he had received a similar response from the US, but had been treated with generosity on other occasions by Congress and the White House.