Proceeding contribution from David Miliband (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 March 2008. It occurred during Opposition day on Iraq Inquiry.
Iraq Inquiry
The events demonstrate a wide range of issues, not least the role of the Iraqi security forces and police in disbanding and attacking some of the Iraqi militia—the Shi'a militia—in the south of Iraq. I shall argue and explain in my speech why the situation in Basra precisely does not call for the sort of inquiry that has been mentioned. Our rationale was simple and it was set out clearly in the debate in the House on 31 October, to which the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks referred. This is what was said at the time:"““important operations are under way in Iraq. Major political decisions in Iraq and efforts to contain the insurgency appear to be in the balance. The Baker commission is expected to report in the next few months. Any inquiry should be able to examine what happens in the coming months””—" that point was made earlier—"““as well as the events of recent years. To begin an inquiry now would therefore be premature””." Those powerful words encapsulate the heart of our case. What is peculiar is that they were not uttered by a Government Minister. Instead, they are the words of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks in that debate, who provided a catalogue of reasons against an immediate inquiry. Let us go through those reasons carefully. Eighteen months on, the Baker commission has reported but every other count set out not by me, but by the right hon. Gentleman in October 2006 applies now. The right hon. Gentleman argued against an inquiry in October 2006 because"““important operations are under way in Iraq.””" That was his argument, not mine. [Interruption.] It is his argument and mine. The same is the case today. About 4,000 British troops are providing vital functions to monitor, mentor and train Iraqi security forces, to provide key support to those forces, to support border security on the Iran-Iraq border and to provide a quick reaction force at high readiness. The right hon. Gentleman also argued against an inquiry because:"““Major political decisions…and efforts to contain the insurgency appear to be in the balance.””—[Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 183.]" So they are today; it is his argument and mine. One has only to switch on the TV to see it. I shall come back to this later and explain current developments but there are clearly clashes between the Iraqi security force and militia groups, never mind important developments on the political front. The Iraqi Government are deliberating on a new election law and a hydrocarbons law, as well as revenue-sharing laws that will benefit all Iraqis. The myriad Iraqi political parties that have emerged since 2003 are working through the implications of their 4 December commitments to constitutional reform. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that that is not relevant, but it is relevant because it is the exact reason given against an immediate inquiry by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks in 2006. In fact, he concluded by saying that an inquiry would be ““premature”” because of those grounds. If that argument was good enough for him then, it should be good enough for him now.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 474 c53-4
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Inquiries Intelligence services Iraq Military alliances Terrorism Security Iraq conflict
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:20:59 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457840
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457840
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457840