Proceeding contribution from Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 June 2009. It occurred during Opposition day on Iraq Inquiry.
Iraq Inquiry
I am not entirely convinced that Sir John Chilcot has changed his mind. I have no doubt that, as the chair of the inquiry, he had to accept what the democratically elected Government of the day decided. I turn to the question of composition. I agreed with what the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said. I have nothing against Baroness Prashar and I am sure that she is an impressive lady in her field. However, no one with military experience will sit on the committee, although the whole purpose of the inquiry is to examine a war and the provision made for fighting it successfully. Baroness Prashar's biographical details—chairman of the Judicial Appointment Commission, chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales and director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—are no doubt those of an impressive person, but they are not remotely comparable to those of a former Chief of the General Staff or First Sea Lord, or a person with military skills. All the Government have been able to say, even when they began their retreat, is that assessors will be available to assist the committee. However, we have not heard why, in the Government's view, it is inappropriate for someone with senior, serious military experience to sit on a committee that is examining what happened in the run-up to a war, during that war and in its aftermath. It is disgraceful that the Government have not only failed in that respect, but have not even provided an explanation to the House. Although the Minister for the Armed Forces might not have the authority to do so, I ask him to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary examine the matter again, because if the inquiry is to carry credibility with the armed forces, which is as important as its credibility with any other sector of the community, it is crucial that they are represented on the committee. My final point relates to the question of blame. The Prime Minister's original statement was quite clear:""The committee will not set out to apportion blame".—[Official Report, 15 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 24.]" His clear intent was that the committee should reach conclusions on the facts and make statements about what happened, but not criticise Ministers, officials or anyone else involved. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary set out today, at the Dispatch Box, that that is no longer the Government's position. The Government know that they could not sustain such an intolerable position. A lot of reference has been made to the Franks committee, but that was not so constrained, because it was for the committee to decide whether to criticise the Government. It concluded that it should not, but that was its decision, not one that had been imposed on it. It is highly desirable that such a situation should apply now. I cannot recall the number of occasions on which Tony Blair said, "I accept full responsibility for the war", which implied a major concession, but then went on to defend everything that he had done. Let us see whether he was entitled to do that. If the committee takes the view that he was not, it would be improper to prevent it from expressing that judgment. The Government have moved on a number of important issues, but each time they have done so grudgingly and unconvincingly, while giving explanations that do not hold water. As several hon. Members have said, the process has been carried out not through statements to the house, but through the entirely artificial device of letters between the Prime Minister and the chairman of the committee. I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by reminding the House of a statement made by Edmund Burke in 1780:""If there is one eminent criterion which above all the rest distinguishes a wise government from an administration weak and improvident, it is this—'Well to know the best time and manner of yielding what it is impossible to keep.'"" The Government, by both their timing and manner, show that they have a lot to learn from the wise remarks of Mr. Burke.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 494 c837-8
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Inquiries Iraq Foreign policy Military alliances Iraq Committee of Inquiry
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:23:14 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_570419
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_570419
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_570419