Brown still leaves big question mark over Labour conduct

Almost apologetic, he stated nonetheless that he supported his former leader's strategy in backing the US to topple Saddam Hussein.

In many respects, though in far more measured tones, Mr Brown appeared an even firmer advocate of armed intervention in global affairs than Blair himself.

This is the first remarkable feature of his appearance, as opinion polls across Britain and Europe, notably in Holland, are turning against armed international action.

The Prime Minister said he did not know the detail of the private correspondence, and therefore of any private undertakings, Mr Blair may have given to President Bush for any future military adventure.

This did not seem to faze Mr Brown, however. Once again this indicates interventionism is a core belief of the New Labour view of the world.

Brown almost appeared the better lawyer — though he was not trained in jurisprudence — than Mr Blair in the way he argued his case against Saddam.

To Mr Brown, the Iraqi dictator remained "a serial violator" of international law and United Nations resolutions. So he had to be dealt with if "international law was to be adhered to".

On the question of paying for military action both during the invasion of Iraq and in the aftermath, Mr Brown declared that no option was ruled out on grounds of cost by the Treasury when he was in charge.

The early part of the Brown testimony has left huge questions about the way the Labour governments have conducted themselves in the crucial affairs of war and peace.

Those still have not been resolved in the way the Afghan mission is now being conducted.

This must be the central question to be addressed by the Iraq Inquiry when it finally reports.

But it is more than a suspicion that a lot of the big questions will not be cleared up even then.