| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): The Prime Minister did not answer the key question, which is, will evidence be given under oath? In this matter, there is a history of obfuscation and deliberate deceit by some agencies and individuals—proven deceit, now. Nothing short of people giving evidence under oath will be sufficient to give the inquiry veracity and integrity, so I ask the Prime Minister now, will he assure us that evidence will be under oath? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister: The terms under which evidence will be given is a matter on which we will comment and report later, but I am absolutely sure that everybody who gives evidence will have to tell the truth to the committee. They are under an obligation to do so by the committee’s terms of reference.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The delay in the announcement by the Prime Minister and the details of the scope of the inquiry have plainly been designed so that it reports the other side of a general election. Given that— [ Interruption. ] I wonder whether I might have the Prime Minister’s attention for a moment; I am trying to ask him a question. Given that Parliament and the people were misled about the causes of and reasons for the war, will the Prime Minister answer the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about the need for an interim report, so that we can learn some lessons about this Government before they have their date with the British electorate?
The Prime Minister: The Franks inquiry was done without an interim report. The Opposition ask for a Franks-style inquiry, and the Franks-style inquiry that we are having will look at the run-up to the conflict, the conflict itself, the reconstruction and the issues about reconstruction afterwards. I think that that is a pretty comprehensive remit—that will take time but must be done in the best possible way. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that if the committee needs the time to do that, it should have the time to do that. It will be a full report from which we want to learn lessons for the future. That is the issue: what lessons we can learn for our military, for our diplomacy, for our security and, of course, for our country’s reputation abroad for the future. That is the essence of what we are doing.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): This inquiry is part of a process of holding the Executive to account, but this House has mechanisms for holding the Executive to account: they are called Select Committees. Any member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will have first-hand experience of the limitations of a Select Committee’s ability to hold the Executive to account. I, as a Member of Parliament, find it extremely difficult to accept that we are giving privileges to people outside this House, under the guise of independence, when we could have an inquiry that gave Members and Select Committees access to the kind of documents that we are giving to those people, when we could have hearings in public and in private, and when we could come to a view.
The Prime Minister:
I understand that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this matter, but she must know that there has been a foreign affairs inquiry by a Select Committee of this House and an intelligence and security inquiry by a Committee of this House. There has also
been the Butler inquiry and the Hutton inquiry, and we now have an inquiry to look at all the events of the past eight years: the run-up to the war, the conflict itself and reconstruction after the conflict. I cannot think of a wider remit than that, and I do believe that, given that the House has looked at the issue many times, it is right that the Privy Council inquiry get on with the job. It will be able to interview witnesses—either Members or other people—take evidence from anybody it wishes and receive all papers from the Government, and nothing will be kept secret from it. That is the model of the Franks inquiry, and that is what we are following.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): May I add my condolences regarding the loss of Lieutenant Mervis and Private McLaren in Afghanistan? The Iraqi conflict has led to the loss of 179 UK service personnel, 4,600 coalition personnel and about 150,000 Iraqi civilians. Their loved ones want to know the cause of the war and why their loved ones fell. If every evidence session is held in private, that may not be possible, so will the Prime Minister think again about holding a secret inquiry? It is the wrong thing to do.
The Prime Minister: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The inquiry has to take into account the interests of our national security and to look at the issues that reflect on the capability and deployment of our troops, and it may not be best for that to be made public. It also has to get people to talk frankly about what they believe are the lessons to be learned from the inquiry. If the inquiry were surrounded by lawyers and everybody else in a public arena, that would be more difficult, as the hon. Gentleman would have to acknowledge.
I believe that the inquiry will be thorough and independent, and I believe that the results of the inquiry will be reported to this House. For weeks and months, people have been calling for a Franks-style inquiry; it is quite extraordinary that now that they have a Franks-style inquiry, they are trying to oppose it on cynical grounds.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Franks was 25 years ago, and the whole climate of opinion has changed since that secret inquiry. I want the Prime Minister to understand that. I had hoped for a new politics of openness after last week. I am not prepared to accept a secret inquiry into Iraq, and I want the Prime Minister to think again.
May I ask the Prime Minister this? After everything that he has been saying, why on earth did he not consult the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the other political parties on the inquiry’s terms of reference, its membership and how long it would take? Why did he take it upon himself again to tell the House what was in its best interests?
The Prime Minister:
The Cabinet Secretary did discuss with the official Opposition and the Liberal party issues relating to this inquiry, so my hon. Friend is wrong on his final point. As far as the wisdom of how we do this inquiry is concerned, let us remember that there are issues of national security, issues related to our military, serving officers who may wish to give evidence and people who are working in other arenas at the moment. I do not think that any person who looked at this in detail would say that all these people should give their
evidence to the inquiry in public; I think that that person would respect the fact that a degree of confidentiality is necessary. They would also understand, on reflection, that if people are going to be frank with the inquiry about the lessons to be learned, those people will want to be able to give their evidence in private. Just look at the alternative. The alternative would mean a long inquiry, lasting years, in which everybody would be represented by a lawyer rather than by themselves. That is not the way to learn the best lessons from this conflict.
Mr. Speaker: I call Patrick Mercer.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am most grateful. The events of the Iranian elections at the weekend will demonstrate just how unstable the region is likely to become. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that plans and resources exist for a British military re-engagement should the Iraqi Government ask for it, and that things will not just be left up to the Americans?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters, will know that we have signed a new agreement with the Iraqi Government about what support we can give them in training, what naval support we can give them and what help we can give them in the short term, medium term and long term. Obviously, there is a very significant reduction in troops; there will be very few British soldiers on the soil of Iraq, but there will be very close co-operation between our two countries. The arrangements that we have with the Iraqi Government will be similar to the bilateral relationships that are very strong in other parts of the region.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I fully understand that it would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to go into detail; I would not wish him to do anything that would compromise the safety of the hostages. Can he give me assurances that, in spite of our withdrawal, our Ministers will still be fully involved in making every effort to secure the release of the five hostages—the computer expert and the four bodyguards?
The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. She has been very vigilant in asking about the welfare of the five hostages. That is something that I have talked about to Prime Minister Maliki on a number of different occasions. I have pressed him to take an interest in the matter directly, and he has done so. We are determined to secure the safe release of the hostages. Some progress has been made, but a great deal is still to be done. The issue is permanently on our desk as something that has to be dealt with. For the safety of those five people, we are doing everything in our power to ensure that they can come home.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): May I remind the Prime Minister that he has yet to answer the question about evidence on oath?
In listening to the Prime Minister’s presentation of Operation Charge of the Knights, one could be forgiven for believing that we had something to do with its preparation and planning, when the truth of the matter is that it took place in a British area of responsibility without notice to us, and it was the most graphic
demonstration of the fact that our troops had been invited to take a role way in advance of the political influence of their leaders, and way in advance of the resources that the nation was willing or able to devote to supporting them in the role they were asked to undertake. Sadly, the number of fatalities in Afghanistan looks as though it is about to overtake the number of fatalities in Iraq. There are important lessons here regarding what is happening in Afghanistan. Will the committee have the opportunity to report emerging conclusions on such issues in advance of its final report?
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on many of these matters and talks a great deal about them. However, he should take care not to talk down the contribution of our military forces. In the episode in Basra where he says that the British military were not consulted and involved, I do not think he is telling the full truth about what happened in that exercise. We need to have all the facts put out there, and of course that is what the inquiry will do.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of an inquiry. However, will he revisit the advice that he has been given by the Cabinet Secretary—I can understand why that advice was given—in two respects in particular? First, the central purpose of the inquiry is surely not just to learn the lessons, although that clearly is an objective, but to establish the truth of what happened. Secondly, the Public Administration Committee, which I chair, has been taking an interest in the form that any inquiry into Iraq should take. Last week, we held a private seminar of very distinguished people, and we are about to issue a report. I have to say that those people felt that the Franks inquiry was appropriate 25 years ago, but a private Privy Counsellor inquiry would not be thought appropriate now. The worst thing of all, surely, would be to replicate all the arguments we have had about Iraq with similar arguments about the form that an inquiry would take. As I say, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but could he regard it as the beginning of a short process of consultation, so that he can carry the whole House with him?
The Prime Minister: I have read the letter that my hon. Friend has written to me, and I appreciate what he has said about his views and those of other people on this. However, his point is answered by the fact that the range of this inquiry goes through eight years—from 2001 to 2009. What he wanted to be sure of was that all the issues relating to Iraq would be discussed. We could have had an inquiry like Franks only into the run-up to the war; we could have had an inquiry about the conflict itself; we could have had an inquiry about reconstruction. Those are all big issues, and we have an inquiry that covers them all. The range of the inquiry is as big as it could be, as a result of the decision that we have made. Some of the points that my hon. Friend’s Committee, or he, wanted to make to me concerned being sure that the range of the inquiry was sufficiently wide so that all these issues can be dealt with, and that is the case.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South) (LD):
In the Prime Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), he suggested that having this inquiry in secret would mean that he, or we, would get the answers that we required. Does he not
understand that it is the British people who require these answers, and that what they require is the truth of what led up to this war? Will he ensure that, if possible, any of the taped conversations between the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the then President of the United States are made available to the inquiry? Will he also ensure that all the recorded telephone calls between the then Prime Minister and President Bush over that period are made available? Can I ask him again not to think about what he wants to hear from the inquiry but to consider what the British people want to hear? What they do not want to hear is that the inquiry is being held in secret. Everyone can accept that part of the inquiry would, for security reasons, necessarily have to address that fact, but most of it—
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks that the inquiry deal with issues surrounding the run-up to the conflict. That is exactly what the inquiry is going to do—it is going to start in 2001. He wants to be sure that it will look at the issues surrounding the decision that was made to go into conflict. That is what the inquiry will do—it will look at all those issues. The disagreement between him and us is about whether we have a Franks-style inquiry, which both the main parties have asked for, or a fully public inquiry. I have given him the reasons why a fully public inquiry does not seem to me to be appropriate when we are dealing with issues of national security and issues affecting the military.
Mr. David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): May I say to my right hon. Friend that the most important decision that any MP makes when coming here is one such as the decision that we took to send our troops into Iraq? I have felt that way ever since I came here, and I have never once asked a question that would embarrass our troops or the Government during that period. I have always waited, in the knowledge that there would be a public inquiry at the end. I am therefore extremely disappointed that we are talking about an inquiry that will be limited in its remit.
At the end of the day, I have always said to my constituents that we need an inquiry for two reasons. One is that we must learn the lessons of the mistakes that were made. The second is that the truth must come out, and the general public need to know the truth. It is important for people to understand that when they give advice to Prime Ministers, there will be a day of reckoning. A public inquiry is the only way forward to deal with that.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has always stood by the armed forces of this country when they have been in conflict, and I appreciate that he holds strong views about the issue. I just say to him that while the inquiry will be done in private, the report will be fully published for people to debate in this House. People will be able to see for themselves what conclusions are drawn by the inquiry. At the same time, as I said to the House earlier, I have asked the inquiry to publish all the information other than the most sensitive military and security information. The House will therefore have a chance to debate a fully comprehensive report that covers eight years and covers all issues in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the conflict.
Point of Order
4.31 pm
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper last Thursday, it was announced that the Third Delegated Legislation Committee would discuss three statutory instruments implementing the identity card scheme. In yesterday’s Sunday Times we read that those debates had been postponed until next month because the Home Secretary had launched an urgent review of identity cards, paving the way for
“a possible U-turn on one of Labour’s flagship policies.”
Have you been given any indication that Ministers are preparing to come to the House to make a statement about the scrapping of the ID card scheme? If they are, it would be extremely welcome on these Benches.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication, because it is not a matter for me. It is a matter for Ministers as to when they come to the House.
Opposition Day
Rural Communities (Recession)
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.32 pm
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the serious impact that the economic downturn is having across the country; notes the specific impact of the recession on rural communities, with recent job losses affecting key rural industries; further notes with concern that levels of economic inactivity are higher in rural areas and believes that increased redundancies will fall particularly hard on small rural communities; further notes that rural communities, already suffering from the closure of key services and the Government’s failure to provide affordable rural housing, are finding it harder to cope with rising unemployment, with those out of work lacking adequate support; is concerned that the recession is exacerbated by the burden of regulation, increased payroll costs and problems accessing credit for small businesses; believes that too little say has been given to people in rural areas with decisions taken centrally; and calls on the Government to show more respect to rural communities and return power to local people.
We have called this debate because we want to draw attention to the impact that the recession is having on rural communities. In many ways, those communities are already fragile, and when faced with economic difficulties they can be left even more exposed. We also want to ensure that the economic potential of rural areas is harnessed, so that they can emerge stronger from the recession and help contribute to the UK’s recovery by driving sustainable growth.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not here in person to put the Government’s case, particularly as only last week the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make the Executive more accountable to Parliament and the people. So much for the latest relaunch. Perhaps we should not be surprised. The word is getting around in the countryside that the Secretary of State is not really interested in the rural aspect of his brief, and today he has proved the point. In his place we have the junior Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I mean no personal disrespect, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment, but he is the fifth Minister of State in five years. What signal does that send to rural communities about the priority that this Government give to farming, rural people and the countryside?
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): My hon. Friend makes an important point about the signal that the Government are conveying to the nation. What signal does it send when we look at the Labour Benches and see only one Back Bencher present in the important debate?
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Quality, not quantity.
Mr. Ellwood: Perhaps we should ask the House authorities to check whether the Annunciators are working in the offices of Labour Members—perhaps they are not aware that the debate is taking place.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |