---

Iraq

My Lords, I rise with humility on two scores. First, it is a tribute to this House, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that we are today debating the fact that there will be an inquiry. When he tabled a debate 18 months ago, that was a much less certain outcome, and all of us in this House who spoke that day realised that we were contributing to pushing this issue forward to the point that it has arrived at now. Like others who believe that an inquiry is enormously important to heal the wounds of this country and our relations with the great abroad—I say that as a former UN official—I think it is extraordinarily important that my colleagues and I reflect carefully on what has been said today. It is enormously important that any inquiry, whatever form it takes, enjoys public confidence. There is some truth in the words of my noble friend Lord Desai that this war has so divided us as a country that whatever the form, process, terms and manner of the inquiry, we may at this stage still be at the point where not everybody will accept its results because, as I have said, the wounds go deep. Like others in this House, I think it is important that whenever we raise this subject we do not forget to pay tribute to all of those in our Armed Forces who have served with such courage and dedication over the last six years in Iraq and over an even longer period in Afghanistan. We especially note, as others have done, the 179 who have lost their lives serving in Iraq, and who, along with our civilian staff and coalition partners, have made such a contribution, together with Iraqis themselves, towards progress. Whatever the differences between us on the causes of the war, the circumstances under which it was entered into and the justness or otherwise of it, I hope everybody in this House would agree that we have arrived at a point where there really is dramatic improvement in the situation in Iraq, and that we can look back on what we are leaving behind which is an Iraq where violence is at its lowest levels since 2003 and where Iraqis themselves have run successful provincial elections in January this year and are now planning for national elections. While challenges remain, it is the case that perhaps was not so when we had that debate 18 months ago that a corner does seem to have been turned. An effort which we all feared might be cursed with a dreadful ending has indeed arrived at a situation where we can all hold our heads high and say that we have made an important contribution as a country to a new and free and democratic Iraq which is now able to focus on issues such as the improvement of its citizens’ lives and their participation in the country’s future without having to fear the authoritarian, brutal rule of the past. A lot of issues have been raised today which turn to the original subject of the debate about what are the lessons we should be seeking to learn from this war. I think probably everybody would agree that the best thing I can do in regard to those issues is to make sure—I do not think they will need any help from me—that Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues carefully read the Hansard of this debate to see the kinds of issues that should be raised. Today I should concentrate on the issue of the inquiry itself and the terms under which it is being held. While I very much appreciated the support I got from these Benches, I find myself oddly forced to do something I never expected to do, which is to jump to the defence of lawyers. Having lived in America for too long, I always find this a hard thing to do, but I think, while it is perfectly the case, of course, that lawyers disagree, if this inquiry is ever to have the confidence of public opinion, it is enormously important that it is felt to have a form that enjoys the support of our colleagues who have spoken today and those who have interested themselves in this issue more fully. Certainly it is the intention of our Prime Minister and this Government that this inquiry does indeed enjoy that confidence and that it looks in as forensic a way as possible at the issues which drew us into this war, and that we do not hide behind just a defence of the outcome as having overthrown Saddam Hussein. We all recognise that there are wars of choice. It may well be that we wish with hindsight that we had intervened against Pol Pot or today in Darfur. The fact is that these are wars of choices. There are brutal leaders out there. We have to be selective when we take them on and we need to do it in a framework which is consistent with international law and in a way which enjoys the support and understanding of the international community expressed through the Security Council. The question was raised whether any of this inquiry can be held in public. I think that it is worth quoting the letter that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sent today to Sir John Chilcot, in which he confirmed that he was committed to, ""a thorough and independent inquiry"," and guaranteed the Government’s full co-operation. The Prime Minister said: "As Privy Counsellors, you"—the committee— ""will have unhindered access to government documents"," and that he will ensure that that happens. He continued: ""I hope as part of this that you will consider whether it is possible for there to be a process whereby they"—" witnesses— ""give their contributions on oath"." As to the public nature of it, he said: ""It is also essential that the families of those who gave their lives in Iraq are properly consulted on the nature of the inquiry. I hope therefore that you will be able to meet them as part of the preparations and as you continue your work, to explain how you are proceeding. This could be, at their request, in public or private"." And then he quite properly allows further discretion to Sir John and his colleagues to establish the exact form and conduct of their inquiry by saying: ""Once you have established your plans in more detail, I would encourage you to hold an open public session to explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry"." I acknowledge that that does not meet the full requirements of openness that have been raised today, but I also want to point out that, in a sense, the thinking in this House about the inquiry has also evolved in that regard. When we spoke in this House on this subject in January 2008, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said: ""I believe that issues such as this should be investigated by a committee of privy counsellors together with others with expert knowledge. It is right that it should be … answerable to Parliament. It is certainly not the occasion for a lengthy judicial inquiry, such as that into Bloody Sunday, or, for that matter, the marathon of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. The focus of such an inquiry should not be on blame, but on learning the lessons—lessons which might help us in formulating policy elsewhere".—[Official Report, 24/1/08; col. 342.]" It is certainly also the case that, in the other House, the opposition Front Bench have similarly stressed the importance of a privy counsellor inquiry, including the fact that it might make only limited public disclosure. On 11 June 2007, in response to a question during a debate in the other place, William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: ""That is one of the arguments for having a Privy Council inquiry. It would have to make its own judgment, as would any inquiry at any stage, about how much of the information could be published. All the conclusions would certainly have to be published".—[Official Report, 11/6/07; col. 535.]" So I think that there has been a very genuine debate about the appropriate degree of public disclosure.