---

Iraq Inquiry

We have had a good and passionate debate. It has covered well trodden ground, and I contend that the arguments for an inquiry have contained little that is new. Five years on from the decision to invade Iraq, our armed forces are still there. They are helping the Iraqis to rebuild their country on a foundation of democratic institutions, after decades of the most appalling tyranny. We are involved in helping with Iraq's economy and infrastructure, and with basic services such as health and education. We are also helping with security—the essential prerequisite to progress in those other areas. Better security is the reason why Iraqi security forces are deployed right now in Basra city on an Iraqi military operation to improve Iraqi security. The operation has been initiated at a time of the Iraqis' choosing, although we continue to provide the specialist support that they may need. It is really encouraging that the Iraqi security forces are both leading and conducting the operation, as it shows that the transition of responsibility for security is working, with Iraqis implementing Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems. The operation also shows that the Iraqis increasingly have the will, capacity and leadership to take on the irreconcilable militia elements in the south. Basra remains of vital economic importance to Iraq. Historically, it was the country's commercial centre and a major gateway for trade, with 80 per cent. of the country's oil coming out through that city. Today's events there only underline the need to focus on the requirements of the operational theatre. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that an inquiry into the Iraq war will be necessary. There are always lessons to learn, and it is clear that there will be important practical lessons about post-war planning. We must examine them if we are to maintain confidence about matters as important as any future military interventions. The question that divides us is when an inquiry should take place. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) sees no difficulty with holding one now. He said that there was no need to wait until our involvement was concluded, and he does not accept that an inquiry would be a distraction from the job at hand. He believes that an inquiry can be held now—with witnesses summoned, deployed equipment scrutinised, and intelligence and policy examined—but that none of that will have a detrimental effect on the ongoing operation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the four points on which the right time to hold an inquiry hinges. He also demonstrated that there is no precedent for conducting an inquiry while troops are still deployed. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) came as close as anyone did to punching a hole in my right hon. Friend's defences when he said that there was indeed a precedent—namely, the inquiry that was held while the Mesopotamia operation of 1916 was ongoing. I have a great deal of respect for his historical knowledge, but let me tell him that we surrendered in Mesopotamia on 29 April 1916, that the commission was set up on 17 August 1916, and that we re-engaged—[Interruption.] Hold on! We re-engaged in December 1916. Let me tell him also that when the inquiry was set up, it said of its terms of reference:"““We believe—and we have acted on that belief—that our main duties were to enquire into the operations antecedent to our appointment, and that to investigate into and report upon pending or present operations might seriously hamper the action of those now in charge of the campaign.””" I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who came closer to winning his argument than anybody else, simply appears to be wrong on that point.