Good afternoon. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12182, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Chilcot inquiry.
I begin with a reminder of the gravity of the subject that we are debating. The United States-led and United Kingdom-backed invasion of Iraq in 2003 began with a strategy that at the time was dubbed “shock and awe”. That was perhaps a far more apt description than it was ever intended to be, for the facts of the Iraq war are indeed shocking, and they are awful. The cost in human terms has been stark. It has been brutal and heart-breaking. It is estimated that the invasion and subsequent conflict have cost the lives of around 150,000 Iraqi civilians, and the impact on Iraq’s infrastructure and economy has been devastating.
At the height of the invasion, the numbers in the UK forces involved peaked at 46,000. In addition to the many who suffered life-changing injuries, 179 UK military personnel died, 136 of them from hostile action. Each one of those deaths is of course an individual tragedy. Last year, the Royal United Services Institute estimated that the cost of UK military operations in Iraq was around £9.6 billion. However, the true cost of any war is incalculable, most especially to those who have been directly affected. The numbers alone do not even begin to describe the full horror and the true human suffering of the war and its aftermath.
Wars often result in a loss of life and in suffering on a scale that we all struggle to imagine, but at the heart of the controversy about Iraq is the fact that the UK was taken to war there on a false pretext. Despite what people were told, no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, and despite the best efforts of those who took us to war to claim that it was legitimate, the legal basis of the invasion was at best very shaky and at worst a gross violation of international law.
I think, and I hope that we all agree, that those who served in Iraq and all those who lost loved ones in the conflict are rightfully owed and should be given answers to the questions that they have. So, too, should the public be given those answers, because of course the public, in their millions, voiced opposition to the war.
The Chilcot inquiry was established almost six years ago. At that time, we were told that it would provide those answers. In launching the inquiry back in 2009, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said:
“The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 23.]
However, here we are, nearly six years on and there have still been no answers. I understand, as I am sure that we all do, that it is vital to have a thorough examination of all the evidence, but the inquiry has been plagued by delays from the outset, not least and most recently from the so-called Maxwellisation process, whereby those who are subject to potential criticism are given the opportunity of pre-publication scrutiny of a report and its findings.
It is important to stress that the Chilcot inquiry’s public evidence sessions were completed almost four years ago, on 2 February 2011. It is also worth reflecting on and reminding ourselves of what Sir John Chilcot said at that point. He said that it would take “some months” to deliver his report. Some time after that, it was clarified that it would take until at least summer 2012 but that the public could expect publication by then.
In 2012, the UK Government prevented the release of details of Cabinet minutes and discussions between Tony Blair and George Bush from the period before the war. That same year, Sir John told the UK Government that he would not even begin the Maxwellisation process until the middle of 2013. In October last year, the UK Government revealed that that process had still to begin.
Most recently, we learned last week that, in Sir John Chilcot’s words, Maxwellisation has not been completed and there is “no realistic prospect” of delivering the report before the general election in May. That is scandalous. That is completely unacceptable.
The view that the Scottish Government takes could not be clearer. For the record, I will make it absolutely clear today. The on-going delay in publishing the inquiry report is completely unjustifiable and it should be revisited as a matter of urgency.
For as long as the report remains hidden from public view, the suspicion will remain and will grow that it is being kept secret because of behind-the-scenes wranglings about its contents—a suspicion that is and can only be fuelled by the extended delay until after the looming Westminster election. The fact that the report might make deeply uncomfortable reading for some of those involved in the Iraq war cannot be allowed to prolong the delay to publication any further.
It would be quite simply unacceptable for the voters of this country to be asked to vote in a general election—to be asked to vote for, or perhaps not to vote for, candidates who were MPs at the time of the decision to go into war in Iraq, some of whom voted for the war—when the public do not have the answers to their questions.
We were told back in 2003 by the proponents of war that the invasion of Iraq was needed to make us safer, such was the threat from weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly could be launched at 45 minutes’ notice. Nobody today could seriously or honestly claim that the Iraq war has made that country, the wider middle east region or the world as a whole a safer place. The war’s legacy has instead been to usher in a decade and more of bitter and bloody sectarian conflict, including the rise of Islamic State militants as a destabilising force in Iraq and neighbouring countries.
In just seven weeks’ time, we will mark the 12th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Twelve years ago, this Parliament was still a very young institution, but even then it rose to the challenge of debating the Iraq situation—we did so just seven days before the invasion commenced. I was proud, along with many others who are in the chamber today, to be among those who recorded our opposition to the war when the issue was put to the vote that day.
The invasion of Iraq was, I believe, a foreign policy blunder of quite epic proportions, the consequences of which we are living with today and will live with for many years to come. Here is the nub of the matter: we must get to know whether there was more than mere miscalculation involved in that foreign policy blunder. Quite simply, only the full and immediate publication of the Chilcot findings can help to shed light on that.
Those responsible for leading the UK to war will have to answer for their actions, but only the full publication of the report will allow them to do that. With every year that passes, the justifications that were given for the war look ever more flimsy, but with every day, week and month that passes, the delay in publishing the Chilcot report becomes ever more glaring and the need for full disclosure becomes unanswerable. I therefore hope that the chamber will come together today and, with one voice, demand loudly and clearly that the report and the findings of the Chilcot inquiry are published, and published before the general election in May.
It is important for the Parliament to note the enormous and, sometimes, ultimate sacrifices that members of our armed forces give. Whatever the rights and wrongs of individual conflicts, our service personnel and their families deserve and have our full and unwavering support. In this instance, that support must include providing those who returned from Iraq and the families of those who did not return from Iraq with the answers that they deserve. We must do so without any further delay.
For those reasons, I am proud to move,
That the Parliament calls for Sir John Chilcot’s official inquiry into the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent war to publish its findings and all evidence ahead of the UK general election; acknowledges that the Iraq war resulted in the deaths of 179 UK service personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; notes that the cost to taxpayers of the war is estimated at £9.6 billion, and believes that, six years after the inquiry was established and three years after hearings concluded, it is in the interests of transparency, accountability and democracy that the report is published as soon as possible and that any further delay in publication is completely unjustifiable.
14:10
I do not believe for a minute that the publication date of the Chilcot inquiry’s report is among the top 10 concerns of the Scottish people, but I strongly believe that it is hugely important that we are all given the earliest possible opportunity to find out what happened, and why, during the build-up to and conduct of the Iraq war, so that we can learn the relevant and necessary lessons.
It is clear that the inquiry is incredibly thorough and detailed—the First Minister alluded to that. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 20 January, Sir John Chilcot said:
“Our report will be based on a thorough and comprehensive account of the relevant events from 2001-2009. We are determined to fulfil the responsibility placed on us to identify lessons to be learned from the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, over this long period.”
I very much welcome the thorough and comprehensive nature of Sir John’s inquiry—that is absolutely as it should be. I share the disappointment that the report will not be published sooner than will be the case, but it is imperative that the process is completed properly. I say that for two reasons—so that the British public are fully informed and so that the report is published without fear of its being challenged on the ground that the due processes were not properly undertaken.
I will expand on that. Two of those due and necessary processes seem to be causing much of the delay that is so frustrating us all. The first involves the declassification of documents that would not normally see the light of day for many a long year but which are, understandably, deemed to be important to the inquiry. In particular, discussions over correspondence between Tony Blair and US President George Bush seem to have taken up an inordinate amount of time. However, I note with some pleasure that Sir John Chilcot, in his most recent letter to the Prime Minister, indicated that agreement had now been reached on those matters.
The second process, which the First Minister referred to, has become known as Maxwellisation. That process gives any individual whose involvement has been criticised or questioned in a draft report sight of that draft and a right to respond before publication. I fully understand that that process has not been responsible for most of the delay, although the process is on-going, and I am clear that the published report could be challenged by anyone who had not been afforded that right. That might be highly unsatisfactory—indeed, it is—to those of us who are impatient for publication, but it is part of the due process that has to be undertaken, and it cannot and should not be controlled or timed by any Government.
We cannot escape the fact that the report could have been published some considerable time ago. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in the House of Commons, he first voted for an inquiry in 2006, but that was rejected by the then Labour Government. Labour MPs voted against it in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
We know the history of obstruction and delay. What I am most concerned about is that the delay affects families who have faced the death of their loved ones in Iraq, including Allan Douglas, a young man who lived in the community that I live in. Does the member think that the delay is acceptable to the Douglas family? I certainly do not.
Nor do I, but I do not think that it helps Allan Douglas’s family, or anybody else who has been involved in the process, to publish the report before the due processes have been fully completed and while it can be challenged. That does nobody any favours.
As I was saying, Labour MPs voted against an inquiry in 2006, 2007 and 2008, which delayed the process for at least three years. Labour members voted against the inquiry and against it being held in public. As David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary, was big enough to admit in an interview in 2009, Labour got it wrong.
My final point, which addresses the intervention by Kevin Stewart, is that the inquiry is independent. Like it or not, it is not for the Scottish Government, or the UK Government, to try somehow to strong-arm the publication date of an independent inquiry’s report. If that were to happen, the value of the inquiry being independent would be hugely diminished, and I believe that a dangerous precedent would be set for future so-called independent inquiries.
In his letter to the Prime Minister of 20 January, Sir John makes it clear that there is “no realistic prospect” of delivering his report before the general election in May. I do not particularly like that, but I have to accept it if I want the inquiry and its report to be truly independent, which I do. I find the Government motion somewhat confusing, in that it calls first for publication of the report before the general election and concludes by asking that the report be published “as soon as possible”.
I am upset that the member seems to think that this is simply about politicians. Kevin Stewart raised the case of the Douglas family, who live in the same community where Kevin Stewart lives, which is in my constituency. They are calling for the report to be published because they need answers about why their son died, as do other families. This is not just about politics; it is about people.
Not for one minute have I suggested that this is not about people, and I reject the inference. People will be best served by a proper inquiry that has undertaken all the due processes that give it total legitimacy, and that is what we need. That the report will be published as soon as possible is what Sir John has said will happen, and that is what we in the Conservatives will support.
In a reply to a written parliamentary question from Rhoda Grant on 25 November last year about the delay in publication of the report of the Scottish public inquiry into hepatitis C/HIV, Maureen Watt, as the newly appointed minister, said:
“As the member will be aware, the Penrose Inquiry is independent of Scottish Ministers and it is for the Chairman, Lord Penrose, to decide on the progress and timetabling of the Inquiry.”—[Written Answers, 3 December 2014; S4W-23426.]
If that is good enough for inquiries that the Scottish Government instituted, surely it is the right process for Chilcot.
In all honesty, I do not really understand why the Government has chosen to debate the matter at all, other than for narrow political reasons. However, as the amendment in my name reflects, the independence of the process has to take precedence over any other factor. That is why we cannot support the Government’s motion at decision time.
I move amendment S4M-12182.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:
“accepts that the timing of the release of the findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq is entirely for the inquiry itself to decide; expresses its disappointment that the inquiry has now stated that its findings will not be published before the 2015 general election, and, despite Sir John Chilcot’s statement confirming this, calls on him to publish the inquiry’s findings as soon as possible.”
14:18
The Chilcot inquiry report should be published as soon as possible. Today’s motion could have been agreed while saving debating time in the chamber for matters that require our urgent attention, such as the crisis in our national health service, the failure of schools to tackle educational disadvantage, and the threat to jobs in the North Sea.
On this side of the chamber, there is no quarrel with the position that Chilcot should be published as quickly as is possible. Chilcot must be allowed to publish when ready; there should be no question of any pressure to delay. The full truth of the decision to go to war and the failings during and after the conflict must be fully aired so that they may be learned from and never repeated. Members may recall that, before my own time in Parliament, this chamber did not vote to oppose the war when the question was put before it.
What we will not support if we hear it today is talk of using the Chilcot inquiry as a political tactic. It is too important for that. The report is a matter of national importance, not of nationalist posturing. In the years since the Iraq war, many things have become clear: that the intelligence behind the decision to go to war was wrong—
Will Ms Dugdale give way?
No, thank you.
It has become clear that the Iraqi people were let down by a failure of post-war planning and that the price in lives lost was far too high.
We have a duty to learn lessons because we owe that to our service personnel—not just those who gave their lives defending us, but those who continue to defend us every day. I hope that, as well as debating the past, the Parliament and the Scottish Government can find more time to debate and deal with the many problems that veterans who live in Scotland face.
We all hope for fresh insights and understanding when Chilcot reports, but I hope—perhaps naively—that, as with previous inquiries, those who call loudest for the report’s publication are not also the first to claim that it is a whitewash. The report is an opportunity for deeper understanding, not for rerunning political arguments of a decade ago. In an increasingly complex middle east, we surely need that.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
It is clear that there is a thirst for democracy across the middle east, but as that has created hope it has uncovered competing interests and at times dangerous conflict.
Will Ms Dugdale give way?
No, thank you.
A sustainable peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people seems as far off as ever in the region. Petro-economies are struggling to meet the demands and fulfil the dreams of angry young populations. Confusing coalitions are shifting and regional power struggles are playing out at the expense of the poorest. A region that already had too many displaced people now finds itself home to 3.8 million new refugees from Syria. Across the region and far beyond Iraq, in countries that had nothing to do with the conflict, extremists who abuse Islam are killing innocent people. They are doing so in Syria and northern Nigeria and from Pakistan to Paris.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Little wonder world affairs commentators have a new acronym for the region: BAD, which stands for broken, angry and dysfunctional.
What matters is not what side of an argument a person was on a decade ago; what matters is learning from the past and working for a more peaceful and secure future.
Will Ms Dugdale give way?
No, thank you.
Whatever side of the argument we were on 10 years ago, we should all unite around a vision for the middle east with human rights, the rule of law, democracy and peace at its heart. In that spirit, we will vote with the Government.
We now move to the open debate. Speeches should be four minutes long, but we have some time in hand if interventions are taken.
14:22
Today, the First Minister reminded us of the words that Prime Minister Gordon Brown used when he launched the Chilcot inquiry. He promised that it would help us to learn lessons that would strengthen our democracy. The delay in the publication of the report must surely undermine that original promise. The lesson that is offered by the scandalous delay is a harsh one. Is the “health of our democracy”, to use Mr Brown’s words, really served by the impression of tiptoeing around powerful vested interests?
In the run-up to the invasion, I was working as the deputy editor of The Herald newspaper. At that time, The Herald called for a United Nations resolution to be obtained before any invasion could even be contemplated. The paper also strove for a balance, given its long reputation as a journal of record, and it reported the Government’s case in good faith on its news pages. I remember the day on which the so-called “dodgy dossier” was published by the UK Government and the efforts that were made to present the story with the appropriate prominence, gravity and analysis.
At that time, even those who opposed the war did not know how far they were being misled. Parts of the media, of course, would have been gung-ho for war whatever the evidence, but other, responsible titles were unwittingly pulled into the deception. That was, of course, before considering the information that we never got to see at the time. We hope that Chilcot will reveal that information.
Shortly after the inquiry opened, it heard one of the most devastating pieces of oral evidence, from Sir Christopher Meyer, who was the UK’s ambassador to the US prior to the war. He stated that, after a private meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in April 2002, Mr Blair’s rhetoric began to reflect the idea of regime change. He also claimed that military preparations for war overrode the diplomatic process. That seemed to be confirmed by Tony Blair when he appeared before the inquiry the following year. The tone of his evidence suggested that regime change was, indeed, what motivated him.
It is worrying that crucial evidence was withheld from the inquiry, as has already been mentioned. In particular, it is worrying that the correspondence between Blair and Bush in the run-up to the war was withheld. That very special relationship was key to how events unravelled. Blair gave Bush credibility at home and abroad. It beggars belief that a Labour Government would lend the camouflage of credibility to the neo-conservative extremists around Bush.
We know that the inquiry was extensive, with the last witness giving evidence in 2011, but the extensive wait is completely unacceptable. In addition, many members of the public will be surprised to learn that we are apparently being made to wait to allow those criticised in the report to scrutinise it, make comments and demand changes—a practice referred to as the Maxwellisation process. The process is named after the late Robert Maxwell, who took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry when it found in an inquiry that he was not a fit and proper person to lead a public company. As subsequent events proved, the DTI was right. How ironic that Maxwell is coming to the aide of Mr Blair, who many believe was not a fit and proper person to lead a country
The wider point—the one which we must address in the interest of the health of our democracy—is: how did Blair get away with it? What was it about the Westminster Government system that allowed those calamitous decisions to be taken in secret?
In the spirit of the cross-party consensus, I will mention one piece of Chilcot evidence: many members of the UK Labour Cabinet were excluded from decision making. I therefore welcome the fact that the Scottish Labour Party is supporting the Scottish Government motion.
Chilcot must answer all those questions. For truth’s sake, voters must see the report before passing judgment on the Westminster system and politicians this May.
14:26
This is yet another occasion on which my party and the First Minister’s party have been united on the issue of Iraq. I am sure that she was as disappointed as I was when the Scottish Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq. I was proud that we stood together against the majority, because we knew our position was the right one. We stood together then just like we are standing together today.
It is a shame that the delays that have characterised the Iraq inquiry were also not a characteristic of the decision to go to war in 2003. Greater deliberation may have avoided the tragedy that unfolded, with thousands of lives lost, many more maimed and a country still recovering from the effects.
In 2007, I visited Umm Qasr, Basra and Baghdad and saw that the invasion’s ramifications were still being felt four years after it began. For example, Iran has a great interest in Iraq, but the invasion unsettled the balance between the two countries. There was no great relationship between them; nevertheless, it was secure before the invasion. It is ramifications such as that that the Blair Government did not foresee or plan for.
In 2010, I subsequently visited Erbil and was able to hear directly from the Kurds about the ramifications for the northern part of Iraq. Again, the situation is unsettled; again, the impact was not planned for. Today, we hear regular reports about Islamic State and some of the atrocities that it is inflicting on minority populations and the rest of Iraq and Syria.
During my visits I saw for myself the folly of the invasion and how the failure to plan for the aftermath would have long-lasting effects. In the Commons, over three years, I voted on four separate occasions for an inquiry into Iraq. On each of those occasions the then Labour Government rejected those pleas. We came up with a various ways in which the inquiry could be conducted; all were rejected. The Labour Government finally conceded at the fag end of its time in government when it could not resist the calls any more.
I led on those calls for an inquiry in a Westminster Hall debate. That was again rejected. I recall the arcane debate about whether the inquiry into the Dardanelles in the first world war was a precedent for an inquiry to be held while the country was still at war. It was claimed that an inquiry would be a distraction for the military when the enemy was still to be defeated. That was four years after George Bush—we all remember that he was not even in Iraq but on an aircraft carrier off the coast of the United States of America—declared “mission accomplished”. The argument that the inquiry could not be held because the conflict was on-going was a farce.
From the beginning, the inquiry was considered an establishment stitch-up and, despite Sir John Chilcot’s determination, it is difficult to disagree. The meetings that at first were held behind closed doors, the restriction of access to records, the vetoing of transcripts and more have all compounded the delay that we are feeling the effects of today.
The inquiry’s composition was supposed to expedite matters, but the result has been an inquiry with insufficient authority. Has one single person held matters up? Probably not, but the establishment, the system and the culture have contrived to ensure that six years later we still have no answers to show. It is therefore absolutely right that the Parliament speaks up to add weight to the growing chorus that is saying, simply and clearly, “Publish—and publish without delay.”
It might be that the lesson that we must learn is that we need to invest more in our diplomatic networks or that we need to learn more about the complex and uncomfortable choices that Government has to make on international matters. I would never advocate an isolationist foreign policy, but perhaps the lesson is to know the occasions on which it is best to sit things out. I hope—I really hope—that those who made the decision are held accountable for their actions, but whatever the conclusion we must learn the lessons before the war is a distant memory.
In 2007, I attended the funeral of Private Scott Kennedy of the Black Watch, who was from Oakley and who died as a result of a roadside bomb in Iraq. For Private Kennedy and the people whom Kevin Stewart referred to—the thousands of others who have lost their lives in Iraq and beyond—we must learn, and learn soon.
14:31
The most important keyword in this whole debate is transparency. Why is that? Because there is none. The Westminster establishment has abandoned even a semblance of transparency about this inquiry.
What else could we expect? We have plenty of experience of this in Scotland: the lies so ingeniously spun by the no campaign; the lethal nuclear warheads that pass through our biggest population centre in the depth of night; the cover-up in the 1970s, with private memos revealing the huge amounts of oil in the North Sea that were not shared with Scotland; the rendition flights; the treatment of asylum seekers; and the refusal to allow our ministers to speak in Europe even when the UK minister is absent. I could go on and on.
When this Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, that transparency was a crucial promise to the sovereign people of this country, and it remains the keystone of all that we do in this place. At least this Government will not deceive, will not dissemble and will not lie. We are all the elected representatives of all of our constituents, and we absolutely owe them integrity and honesty in everything that we do. If there are members in the chamber who have not lived up to that demand, I ask them to examine their own consciences and to deliver only the truth.
The Chilcot inquiry, which was set up in 2009, was expected to publish in 2012; it has cost us over £9 million; and to date its output is zero. Some facts have come out, not because of but in spite of the inquiry. We know that 27 lawyers warned Tony Blair that the war was illegal and that he knew that at least two months before the invasion, and UN representatives have made it absolutely clear that there was never a prospect of a majority of members voting in favour of a second resolution. We also know that abusive attacks on President Chirac for his caution were deliberately played up; indeed, President Chirac himself described it as “Soviet-style misinformation”. The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the ultimate judge and a Labour loyalist, miraculously changed his mind from illegal to legal, presumably under pressure from George Bush and after spending a day in talks in Washington.
All of this will have been grist in John Chilcot’s grinding mill, but he himself did not expect the mill to grind on for so long. Why are we tolerating this absurd delay? Yes, the inquiry team has done a great deal of work, and it is abundantly clear that the ready access to and co-operation in the corridors of Whitehall that Gordon Brown promised have not been forthcoming. Still, it is nearly 12 years since the invasion took place. There is a limit to the public’s patience and the patience of the families who lost loved ones in this illegal and immoral war. I am talking about the people I have stood with in George Square in silent remembrance with—people like the family of Rose Gentle, her aunt and her daughters, and the people who Kevin Stewart and Willie Rennie mentioned.
It would too be convenient for Tony Blair and several other key figures to keep it all quiet. Mr Blair never wanted the inquiry anyway. It would be convenient to leave a lingering impression that it is all John Chilcot’s fault for taking so long. Convenience serves David Cameron’s case well, too, as he moves towards the general election.
John Chilcot’s report has long passed the stage of acceptable delays regarding the thoroughness of the final product. Even Lord Hurd said that it is “becoming a scandal”. Our own First Minister has described the notion of going into a general election without the report being published in full as “intolerable”.
Like many people, including the families, I want to know why this report is being so conspicuously withheld, apparently by nameless Whitehall mandarins. Chilcot was foolish enough to sign what amounts to a non-disclosure agreement, so he cannot publish without Government approval—so much for his independence. I would like to ask him, “What would happen if you did go ahead, Sir John? What would they do?” I suggest that he should go ahead. Can someone be condemned for telling the truth and being transparent about what we all have the right to know?
It just will not do. We demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not for us but for the families affected, and not after the general election but now. Is that too much to ask? Yes, almost certainly it is when it comes to getting transparency from Westminster, but we will fight for it relentlessly, and I believe that our purpose is sound.
14:36
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the first Government business debate that Nicola Sturgeon has brought forward as First Minister. As Kezia Dugdale said, we could have spent this afternoon debating other issues such as the health service, but Nicola Sturgeon has chosen to prioritise a debate on the yet-to-be-published Chilcot inquiry report, and she is of course entitled to do that.
The Chilcot inquiry was set up because it is vital that we learn the lessons of Iraq, and I agree with the other members who have said this afternoon that the inquiry should report as soon as practically possible. In 2003, I was a student at the University of Glasgow and, like many others, I did not support military action in Iraq; indeed, I marched against it. I had deep reservations about military action but, in spite of them and what has happened since, I believe that the decisions on Iraq were made in good faith and with good intention. As we know, neither the House of Commons nor the Scottish Parliament voted against military action. Although I think that they were wrong, I criticise nobody who was faced with making the toughest of decisions.
It is important to place on record our gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces who fought and died in Iraq because, irrespective of individual opinions on whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, those people do not have the luxury of debating the legal or moral case of military action. For the families of the service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, the Chilcot inquiry will have added significance.
Had we known in 2003 what we know now, the invasion of Iraq would very likely not have happened. Members are right when they say that we must learn lessons from those mistakes, which is why Gordon Brown and the Labour Government initiated the Chilcot inquiry in 2009, after combat troops withdrew from Iraq, and why we think that the report should be published as soon as practically possible.
However, I am sure that we all hope that some lessons have already been learned, and I believe that that is the case. A number of senior figures have expressed regret at the decision to take action. Alex Fergusson mentioned David Miliband, but those figures are not just in the UK. In the United States, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that, in voting for the invasion of Iraq, she
“got it wrong. Plain and simple.”
We know that Chilcot is an important piece of work and there is a real public interest in its findings, but what must not be forgotten in these discussions is the continuing need to support the people of Iraq. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR—the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—says that there are about 3.1 million internally displaced people in Iraq, including 1 million who were displaced between 2003 and 2013 and 2.1 million who were displaced last year. Just this week, we have seen reports of thousands of Iraqis living in extreme poverty and running out of money altogether after fleeing fighting and settling in the south of the country, so there is a clear need for support from the international community and it is absolutely right that the UK Government continues to provide humanitarian aid—
Will the member give way?
Sorry, I do not have time.
The people of Iraq cannot afford to have their current needs lost in the discussion of those past mistakes. We know that the conflict continues to affect a number of countries, Sunni and Shia, in the middle east, including Iraq. Those are, of course, not just challenges for the international community; Iraq’s future is best served by an inclusive and united Government.
The Chilcot inquiry is undoubtedly an extremely important piece of work and I think that members across the chamber are in agreement that the report should be published as soon as possible. In the meantime, we must not forget the need to support the people of Iraq in their struggle with the challenges of 2015.
14:40
The debate goes to the heart of one of the greatest issues to have faced the United Kingdom in modern times, for there can be no graver decision than that of whether to go to war—whether to place our young men and women in harm’s way.
The purpose of the Iraq inquiry was to shine a light on all the circumstances leading up to the Iraq invasion; to understand what lay behind the decisions that were taken; to assign responsibility for the mistakes that were made; to hold those who made them to account; and to learn the lessons for the future.
The First Minister quoted the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who said:
“The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 23.]
Who today in the chamber or in the country can doubt that the UK’s democracy, diplomacy and military have been damaged by the decisions that were taken? Who now doubts that the trust between the UK Government and the people has been broken and that that trust has yet to be restored? Who can deny that the UK’s standing in the world has been diminished by the actions of its Government?
Weapons of mass destruction were the basis on which the case for war was predicated. Tony Blair told the House of Commons that Saddam’s
“weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing ... it is up and running now.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 September 2002; Vol 21, c 3.]
That claim was not true. The UN weapons inspector Hans Blix referred to “weapons of mass disappearance”. He said:
“it was like surgery intended to remove something malignant finding that the malignancy was not there.”
The dossier, which was based on the findings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, contained a number of allegations, none of which have—to this day—been proven or substantiated. Among those allegations were claims that Iraq had an on-going nuclear programme; that WMD programmes were concealed and well funded; and that chemical and biological weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes. Those claims were echoed in the tabloids, which sensationalised the information and framed Iraq as a direct threat to the people of the United Kingdom. For example, The Sun had a headline proclaiming “Brits 45mins from Doom”. Yet, in his evidence to Chilcot, Major General Michael Laurie said:
“We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence”,
which was
“sparse and inconclusive.”
The motion in the name of the First Minister quite rightly refers to the human casualties of the war, but it is now clear that a major casualty of the conflict was the truth itself.
Many believe—as Joan McAlpine mentioned earlier—that Blair was intent on war in order to bring about regime change, which is illegal under international law but which he and the neoconservative Administration in the White House wished—indeed, were determined—to bring about. Clare Short, who left the Blair Government over Iraq, said that Blair’s actions were an “honourable deception”, but millions of people throughout the world now believe that those actions were a deliberate deception, and a dishonourable one at that.
Only the publication of the Chilcot report will allow us to know the truth about what took place. The inquiry should publish its findings at the earliest opportunity; the families of the fallen and the people of this country expect and deserve no less.
14:44
I support the Government’s motion, and specifically its call for the report to be published as early as possible. However, I agree with the sentiment that some other members have expressed in the debate. Looking at some of the issues facing us in Scotland, such as the growing crisis in Scotland’s accident and emergency departments, the youth unemployment that blights so many of our communities, and the college cuts that deny many people access to the courses that they want to take, it seems to me that the Government’s time would be better spent in debating those issues than in undertaking an exercise to support the Scottish National Party’s general election campaign
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Will the member give way on that point?
No, thank you.
All wars are controversial and there is no doubt that the war in Iraq was very controversial. As other members have stated, the war was supported not only by the Scottish Parliament but by the UK Parliament. However, some who voted in favour of the war have since acknowledged that they regret their decision and feel that it was the wrong one.
The reason why there was such controversy over Iraq was because of the debate about the basis of the decision to go to war and whether that decision was correct. In addition, lives have been lost and there has been a substantial cost to the country.
In that context, the Labour Government was correct to set up the Chilcot inquiry—
Will the member give way on that point?
No, thank you.
It is important that the inquiry is independent and that it runs through its due process. However, I agree with those who have expressed extreme frustration at the length of time that it is taking for the report to be published.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
We need the report to be published as soon as possible. Those who lost loved ones in the conflict, the military personnel who fought in the conflict and who suffered injury, and the public, given that the war is an issue of great public interest throughout the UK, all need answers not only on the decision to go to war but on how the conflict was waged.
It is imperative that we get answers—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. It is important that the report is published as soon as possible.
I understand and support the sentiment in the Government’s motion. However, today in Parliament we have heard about how cuts in mental health services have led to a reduction in the number of educational psychologists—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. We also heard at First Minister’s question time about appeals to examination results and about the lack of access to Scotland’s universities for people in deprived communities. We do ourselves no service as a Parliament if we ignore those issues.
In the run-up to the general election, it is crucial that the Government, if it is to act responsibility, and we as a Parliament, if we are to act responsibility, debate issues over which we have locus and for which we have responsibility, and on which we can make a difference now. It is important that we get those issues right and get on with the job in hand.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There are many occasions on which I come to the chamber and do not necessarily want to debate the issue that is in the Business Bulletin. However, we are here to debate Chilcot today, and it seems that other members are trying to avoid the subject. It does not matter whether they want to debate the subject or not; it is what is in the Business Bulletin, and we should therefore be debating it. We owe it to the families who have lost loved ones to debate the point that is being made today.
I thank you for your point, Mr Stewart. I am afraid that it is not a point of order, but you have made your point.
Mr Kelly, have you finished?
I had concluded my remarks, Presiding Officer.
Thank you.
14:49
I do not want to dispute with the Presiding Officer, but I have no doubt that the reason why Labour members do not want to talk about the Chilcot inquiry is because it impacts on past Labour Governments. That is the real reason, and that is a disgrace, when the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK and beyond are entitled to know the truth of what happened then.
Like Neil Bibby and many others, I marched against the war—not in our name. Even the dogs on the street knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that the war was about regime change and that the Blair and Bush cohort were together discussing how they could do it.
I do not know why we are waiting for the Chilcot inquiry report, because it will be a whitewash. There is no way that we are going to get people exposed to the critique of why they went into that illegal war, which took us into a bigger international mess than ever before. Quite rightly, the debate has been opened up to discuss the plight of the Iraqi people now and all that has happened, and we are not safer because of what happened in those days.
On the delay in publishing the report and the timing of publication, it is all right to say that we want it published as soon as possible, but I note that the Labour Party is not saying that that should be before the UK general election. Jim Murphy does not want it published before then. Why not? Because, on Mr Blair’s website, claim number 5 is that he stopped the illegal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has cured everything. He has 50 claims on his website, and that is one of them.
The delay is because there are too many people with too much to lose, including not only Blair but Gordon Brown, who told the inquiry that the war was right and that the troops were properly armed and financed. In that case, why was I reading about the fact that they were getting food parcels, that they had the wrong shoes on their feet and that the vehicles that they were in did not protect them? Was I dreaming all that?
The Labour Party also has Jim Murphy, who apologises for everything but not for voting for the Iraq war. There is also Sir Jeremy Heywood, who is now Cabinet Secretary to David Cameron and who has been at the centre of Government for decades; he is keeping schtum. There is also George Bush and his extended family, with their interests in Halliburton and all the money that they made during the Iraq war and after it, and which they continue to make—they are all in it together.
Not only was the Iraq war illegal and about regime change, the conduct of the war was disgraceful. I will quote from people who know far better than me about that. Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff at the time of the Iraq invasion said:
“I suspect if I asked half the Cabinet were we at war, they wouldn’t have known what I was talking about. So there was a lack of political cohesion at the top.”
Lady Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, said that the invasion of Iraq “undoubtedly increased the threat” of terrorist attacks in Britain. How right she was! Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said:
“I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal ... The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Lord Goldsmith said:
“I was not being sufficiently involved in the meetings and discussions about the resolution and the policy behind it that were taking place at Ministerial level.”
I bless the internet, because it means that such information cannot be hidden from the public.
On the invasion of Iraq itself and the “shock and awe” to which the First Minister has referred, another commentator has stated:
“Everything would depend on what came next. But the American fantasy that the Iraqi state would continue to function and would pick up the pieces a day after Baghdad fell proved entirely unfunded. ‘You had no Iraqi institutions to co-opt,’ recalled General McKiernan. ‘No Iraqi army, no Iraqi police ... No local or national government organisations. Ministries didn’t exist.’ General William Wallace, commander of the US 5th Army Corps, put it more succinctly. ‘There was nobody to receive the surrender from. We couldn’t find them. They weren’t there.’”
The whole thing is a disgrace. The Labour Party members in the chamber might not have been here for the vote in 2003, but please do not defend the actions of anybody of any party who took us into that illegal war—you are worthy of better.
14:54
I have had the privilege of serving in Parliament since its re-establishment in 1999, and I have been present at each and every debate on Iraq that we have had. I recall the first, which was not in this chamber, in this setting, but up at the assembly hall where Parliament first sat. I remember the outstanding speeches that took place in the lee of hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions—not just Neil Bibby—marching against a war and protesting that it would not be in their name.
In that first debate, too, there were some outstanding speeches. I recall the speech by George Reid, who used his experience in the Red Cross to warn of the devastation and hardship that would be wreaked around the globe—and it followed.
It is therefore shameful that the Labour members who used their votes to drive through a majority in favour of war are not here today to apologise or to atone for the actions that they took. They may think that by putting forward representatives who were not there, their fingerprints are not on the Iraq war and that new skin can be used. That war remains not just the war of Tony Blair, but the war of Jim Murphy and the war of the Labour Party—a war that has wreaked havoc on Scotland and the rest of the world, that has taken the lives of young servicemen and women and which has caused difficulties throughout humankind.
There are two particular points that we have to deal with.
Would Kenny MacAskill at least acknowledge that Labour supports the Government’s motion and will vote for it tonight?
Maybe, but Labour has still not atoned for the culpability or the actions of the Labour Government, which have made this world a far less safe place.
All wars wreak devastation and all wars leave obfuscation. As we heard from the First Minister, the Iraq war certainly caused devastation, not just in Iraq and the wider middle east, but elsewhere, as we have seen, tragically, on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid and elsewhere. Devastation has been wreaked because of the actions that whipped up a hornets’ nest and created an unsafe world.
There has certainly been obfuscation, because all wars can cloud things and leave people with difficulty in being able to differentiate between truth and fantasy and between reality and fiction. However, it is important that we avoid obfuscation—that we avoid mythology appearing and instead ensure that justice is delivered. We need to ensure that we nail the lie that this was a war to deal with weapons of mass destruction, because it was known before, during and after it—let it be rung out loud and clear from Chilcot—that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that that was a false pretext. Those points have been raised by many members.
Let us hear what went on between Tony Blair and George Bush, because there has been devastation throughout the world, but not in Whitehall. Seeking understanding after wars can be very difficult, but Chilcot has taken longer—and the inquiry has still not reported—than the conduct of the Nuremberg trials after world war two. People who were fleeing justice had to be pursued, but that was managed. After world war one, with the collapse of empires—Romanov, Austro-Habsburg and the Hohenzollern—we managed to conclude a treaty, albeit that it was a flimsy one, in the hall of mirrors at Versailles in a shorter time than that in which Chilcot has managed to report, but we have to remember that no devastation has been wreaked in the palace of Westminster. There have been no burning embers or bunkers down in Whitehall.
The information is there: it should be readily accessible with the technology that we have in the 21st-century world in which we fought a 21st-century war. We should be able to make the information clear to Chilcot and to those who have served with him. People such as those who sought to flee from justice after world war two are not represented in Chilcot—we know where those people are. We can follow their trail of invoices and bills for the fees that they charge for their lectures, as they masquerade as emissaries of peace or whatever else.
The time has come. If we could deal with things at Versailles and at Nuremberg, the time has come for publication of the Chilcot report. We are entitled to no less, as has been said by speakers from all political parties, and not just mine. Young men died and their parents grieve—as Sandra White mentioned, Rose Gentle is the clearest example—and we owe it to their memories to find out what happened.
To some extent, we know what happened, but we need to find out why, and we need to make sure that this is the first of many inquiries that will follow, not just into what happened in Iraq but into what happened in Libya, what happened with rendition and what happened in the cosy relationship between new Labour and George Bush that has made this world a less safe place, not just for Scotland but for all of humanity.
15:00
We have consistently stated that the Chilcot report should be published as soon as possible. We agree with the Government on that point, and we will support the Government motion at decision time. I say that again, after all Labour speakers have said that, because it seems to be a point that has been missed by every Scottish National Party speaker: we will support the Government at 5 o’clock.
I think that it is strange that we are debating the subject when we all agree that Chilcot should be published as soon as possible. We are missing an opportunity to talk about our national health service, educational inequality or the problems that face the oil industry.
If the Government wants to have a debate about the Iraq conflict—which, it seems, is what it wants to do—let us do that. Let us not use the false premise of Chilcot—
Will Mark Griffin give way?
I am sorry. I am just making my opening remarks.
If the Government wants to debate the Iraq war, that is fine. Let us have that debate, but it still represents a missed opportunity to state our support for the families of the soldiers who lost their lives, the families of the Iraqi civilians who lost their lives, and the troops who returned to Scotland and are coping with issues related to combat stress.
Finally, it is a missed opportunity for us to talk about Iraq as a country—how it has moved on from the conflict, what we can do to contribute to its regeneration and how we can support its citizens to make them feel more confident and secure in their country and with their country’s place in the world.
There have been improvements in Iraq, although the pace of change has been far from what was promised. Problems of sectarianism have blighted Iraq, and although the situation is not as bad as it was at the height of the violence in 2006, still far too many people die every week in religion-motivated attacks, and we see news of more deaths all the time.
I have said in the chamber before that I grew up with more awareness of the situation in Iraq than most people my age, because my mum had a childhood friend who was Iraqi. They both grew up in Dennistoun and her friend had in her teenage years to move back to Iraq with her family. My mum would often tell stories about her friend when I was growing up. Any time there were news reports on television about the latest massacre that Saddam had inflicted on his own people, she would talk about how she hoped that her friend Mae was still alive, as she was a member of a family of academics, who were considered to be a threat to the regime.
Mae did survive and was able to move back to the UK after the conflict. She got back in touch with my mum, and she and her husband have spent recent Christmases with my family in Scotland. She has spoken to me at length about the conditions in which Iraqi people were living under Saddam and how things are for her family, who still live there. She has spoken about the sectarian violence that plagues the country, the number of people who live in poverty, the problems with power supplies and the lack of access to clean water.
Those are the issues that should dominate any debate about Iraq. We should be asking how we, as a country, can support Iraq to address those problems in order to boost Iraqis’ confidence and pride in their country, which has been clearly evident when I have spoken to people from there.
Air links to Iraq are still not well developed. We have only recently seen connections established between London and Baghdad, despite the fact that London has probably one of the biggest populations of Iraqis outside Iraq.
Electricity is not supplied around the clock, 24 hours a day, in an energy rich nation—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The member has been talking about air links to Iraq. I cannot for the life of me see how that links, even in the most tenuous way, to the motion and amendment that are published in the Business Bulletin. It was open to the Labour Party to lodge such an amendment if members wanted to bring in such matters. I seek your guidance on how far we may digress from what is in the Business Bulletin.
I am content that Mr Griffin’s speech is within the confines of the debate.
I am sorry that SNP members do not want me to talk about the Iraqi people and the situation that they face—[Interruption.]
Order.
SNP members would much rather campaign on general election points and try to kick opponents than hear about the plight of the Iraqi people and what we can realistically do to support them.
Mark Griffin has told us much about his family connection and the Iraqi person whom his mother knew. With that background, does he personally think that the Labour Party was right to support the invasion of Iraq all those years ago?
You must draw to a close, Mr Griffin.
I do not think that the debating point was whether we agreed to go to war. We have heard from Labour members including Neil Bibby, who talked about his experience of marching against the war. I did not support the war, but I am not going to apologise for a vote that took place when I was still at school—
That is what SNP members want you to do, though—
Order.
Mr Griffin, you must close very, very soon. You must close.
I would rather talk about the personal experiences of the people of Iraq. Security in Iraq is improving, citizens have access to mobile phones—
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. You must close. Thank you.
15:07
I will be brief. On 10 April 2002, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair said:
“Saddam Hussein’s regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 April 2002; Vol 383, c 23.]
In September 2002 he said, of the intelligence service:
“It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... which could be activated within 45 minutes”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 September 2002; Vol 390, c 3.]
On 4 June 2003, he said:
“There are literally thousands of sites ... As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 June 2003; Vol 406, c 161.]
Well, we know that Hans Blix’s team found nothing. Blair lied, and David Kelly died—an intelligence officer died in the most questionable of circumstances. The Iraq war was an illegal, despicable, destructive war, the background to which we should be told about—and told about now.
The war had much more to do with oil and the buttressing of large corporate companies such as Halliburton, whose former chief executive officer became vice-president of the United States at the time of the war.
In his recent memoir, Kofi Annan reflected on what might have happened if, when there was no second UN resolution, Blair had said to Bush, “This is where we part company. You’re on your own.” Chilcot must tell us what was said twixt Blair and Bush—preferably unredacted, although I have little hope that that will happen.
The delay in publication of the Chilcot report is an insult to the 179 UK and 4,500 US service personnel who died, and to the 650,000—that is The Lancet’s estimate—Iraqis, including many children, who lost their lives. The delay has been caused—allegedly—because the witnesses want to see what has been said about them. What about the families of the Iraqi children? What about the families of the UK and US service personnel? What about their right to know what happened?
The war cost the UK economy £9.6 billion. The funds were authorised by Gordon Brown. For what?
Last week, Kevin McKenna wrote splendidly in The National that Westminster produces a fabric of the state in which London, Oxbridge, Labour, Conservative and secretaries to the Cabinet conspire to maintain what they believe is their established right to alternating UK Governments. In so doing, in the case of the delayed Chilcot inquiry, that fabric is a black curtain, six years in the making, that has now been drawn across this particular infamy.
Some 80 per cent of the people who were questioned in the BPIX poll believe that Blair was lying, and 40 per cent think that he should be jailed. Blair appeared before the Chilcot inquiry on 29 January 2010 stating responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein. Of course, that was not the purpose of UN resolution 1441. That resolution was breached, and Blair misled Parliament and the people of the UK, with dire consequences.
There is a story behind every death. None is more telling than the story of Rose Gentle, who lost her 19-year-old son, Gordon, in that debacle. She was present at the session when Blair gave his evidence to Chilcot. She said, “I am not a politician trying to score cheap points but a mother seeking justice for her son.” She deserves to know the answer. We all deserve and demand an answer now, so let us unite across this Parliament and demand without fear or favour, and in the name of open Government, the publication now of the Chilcot inquiry.
Before we leave the open debate, I remind all members who have taken part in the debate to return to the chamber for the closing speeches.
15:11
This debate is essentially about the Chilcot inquiry but, in reality, it is probably more about truth. In the course of the debate, we have had a number of interesting contributions; some have been focused and passionate, but I have to say that others have been rambling and incoherent. However, we need to focus back on truth. The truth is that Scottish soldiers have given their lives for the United Kingdom in many wars, and we should respect the memory of those who have done so.
Even during my lifetime, I have seen on a number of occasions Parliament discuss the prospect of war. That has been characterised by the fact that Oppositions have trusted the information that they have been given by Governments. That trust, it seems, was undermined in the build-up to the second Gulf war. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that that trust existed strongly at the time. We heard from Joan McAlpine about how The Herald reported the Government’s position in good faith. It did not know the extent to which it was being misled at the time, and neither did any of the rest of us.
If the report were published tomorrow, however, and failed to support the First Minister’s particular view, how much further forward would she be?
During this debate, many people have prejudged the outcome of the inquiry. Even Willie Rennie, a man whose reasonable attitudes are famous, said that he believes that the inquiry was an establishment stitch-up. Even in ancient Greece, they knew that truth was the first casualty of war.
We are now six years on from the time when we expected Chilcot to begin to give us the answers. Public evidence taking was completed four years ago, and we still wait for the report. However, we must remember who that report is for. Many have spoken with passion today about the families of those who lost their lives. We must also remember those who still have their lives, but whose lives have been destroyed by things that happened in that battle. However, the report is not only for them. There are those who might be at risk in future wars of becoming casualties of a process that is not informed by the inquiry’s outcome.
Those who seek the truth and desire to learn from it want the report, when it is published, to tell us the truth, to be accepted by all sides, and to ensure that it is a conclusion that we can all accept. If the outcome of the process that we have engaged in today is a rise in public opinion that the report should be published at any cost before the general election, we risk not getting the benefit of that truth.
I ask the member to answer a particular question:
“Will delaying the start of the inquiry and prolonging the publication until after the next election not lead everyone to conclude that this inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoid having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions?”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 25.]
David Cameron said that in June 2009.
That is a good question, but it is not relevant to the argument that I am trying to make.
Truth will be the most important outcome of the inquiry. If the process is not completed, or if it is interfered with in any way so that anyone can claim that the independence of the inquiry and its report has been compromised, we will have lost everything—the time, the money and the lives that have been invested in it. That is why I believe that the report should be published before the general election. However, if it has not completed due process and that cannot happen, I will regret that but accept it. I want to see publication happen in a way that we can trust, believe and understand and I do not want to put any barriers in the way of us getting the full advantage of the inquiry report when it is published.
15:17
The Chilcot inquiry, which was established by Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister, is a crucial inquiry that must be given time to be conducted thoroughly. However, the time between the final evidence session in 2011 and now rightly causes many concerns across the country and it is only right that publication of the final report must take place at the earliest opportunity. As we head into a general election, we must beware of the inquiry becoming a party-political issue despite calls from all parties to have the report published.
In 2010, Sir John Chilcot, who has the final say over the timing of the inquiry at all stages, rightly ordered a recess to avoid influencing the general election but we are in danger of allowing that to happen now.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
We must not forget the lives that were lost during the conflict; I know that the families will never forget. Those families want and deserve answers and to know that other families will not suffer the torment of losing a loved one.
The Government motion states that
“it is in the interests of transparency, accountability and democracy that the report is published as soon as possible”.
The Scottish Government is correct and that is why Scottish Labour supports the Government motion.
Will Mary Fee give way on that point?
No, thank you.
On top of our justified bewilderment over the release of the report, we have to remember that the families of our armed forces want answers. Different media sources report that this person is to blame or that person is responsible for the delay in publication. No matter who is to blame or what people say, the final call on publication will be made by Sir John Chilcot.
As the First Minister has said, the delays are totally unacceptable. I spoke earlier about the danger of the inquiry becoming a feature of the forthcoming general election. We must remember that the most important people are the families of those who were killed and injured, and they deserve better.
That warning must be heeded by all parties, whether or not they supported what happened in Iraq. Today was an opportunity for us all to unite behind our concerns about the delay in the publication of the inquiry report and to debate our genuine concerns and acknowledge the hurt and damage that have been caused. Unfortunately, the tone that has been taken by some on the Government benches has detracted from that. They have chosen instead to make political mischief.
In contrast, when opening for Labour, Kezia Dugdale rightly warned that we will not support the use of Chilcot as a political tactic, because the issue demands greater respect than that. Kezia Dugdale also spoke about the things that have become clear since the Iraq war: that the intelligence was wrong, that the Iraqi people were greatly let down by a failure of post-war planning and that the price in lives was unacceptable.
Mark Griffin and James Kelly said that the debate is a missed opportunity for the Parliament to debate matters over which we have influence.
Will Mary Fee take an intervention on that point?
No, thank you.
Mark Griffin recounted how a long-standing family friend, an Iraqi woman, moved back to Iraq before the war and how his mother feared for her friend living under the regime there, because her family were educated and therefore a threat. We also heard of the humanitarian impact, sectarian violence, poverty and problems with infrastructure. The promise of improved infrastructure was not delivered to the Iraqi people.
Neil Bibby spoke of poverty and lack of access to food, much of which related to the displacement of the Iraqi population. The UNHCR reports that about 3.1 million people are displaced, with 2.1 million of them fleeing in the last year alone. That devastating crisis needs to be addressed. We cannot have a rerun of what was witnessed in the run-up to the 2003 war. Not a week goes by when we do not hear about the continuing terrorism that is occurring in the middle east. The situation in Syria and Iraq and the assault by Isil present the region with further problems. The international community must unite to support the country to be an inclusive and united nation with a Government that represents all of its people.
The Chilcot inquiry should allow us as a nation to learn from our mistakes. I recognise that the majority of public opinion was against the intervention in Iraq. A recent YouGov poll showed that 68 per cent of people would like to see the inquiry report as soon as possible.
I repeat that we will support the Government motion at decision time, as we believe that it is right that the inquiry’s findings are published as soon as possible. However, I also repeat my warning that the issue must not be used in general election campaigning. [Interruption.]
Order.
That would be disrespectful to the dead, the injured, their families and the Iraqi people.
15:23
The previous remarks lead us back to the point about why the debate is important. The First Minister said that this is a grave subject, and indeed it is, but I will set out some reasons why the debate is important. First, there is nothing wrong with holding elected representatives to account, as that is part of the democratic process. Democratic responsibility is extremely important, and disdain for it is wrong. We are going to have the third general election since the Iraq war happened. In a democracy, the ability of citizens to have faith in and scrutinise the processes and decisions of the Government is extremely important.
Another reason why the debate is important is that the Chilcot inquiry has become a central element in the public’s ability to know the truth of what happened at the time. It is important that we have a fearless investigation and it should not be hamstrung by a desire to protect very powerful people. There is an old saying in the legal profession that goes, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” I would say that we should let justice be seen to be done though the heavens, or even the reputations of some individuals, fall.
Labour, which has been talking about the NHS, educational psychologists and various other things—anything but the subject that is in front of us—seems to have forgotten that it is most important to remember the 179 souls from this country who died serving their country during that conflict, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died. They should remain in our minds.
Of course it is perfectly legitimate that we should discuss such an issue. The service personnel and their families are entitled to ask why they were asked to do what they were asked to do. We know that they were not told at the time. In a dossier that could best be described as a weapon of mass deception, the case was made that there were weapons of mass destruction only 45 minutes away from the UK.
The old saw, “Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do and die,” cannot be the limit of the service personnel’s human rights. They have explicitly forsworn their democratic right to object to, or refuse to do, what they are asked to do and they do as their elected Government asks them to. Even if they think that their political masters are stupid, venal or naive, they have to do what they are asked to. However, more than anybody else, they surely have a right to know the arguments, processes and reasons—and even the deals that were done before they were sent to put their lives in danger.
As I have thought about the matter over the years, I have tried to imagine how service personnel felt having been told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, having seen friends die in the pursuit of that conflict and having seen comrades disabled by their injuries. Would it have been more horrifying to them to find the weapons of mass destruction or to find that there were none, having seen the carnage that had preceded?
We have now found out that the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction was a false prospectus. The idea—which was always preposterous—that they were 45 minutes away from being a threat to the UK is increasingly preposterous. Everybody realised that at the time.
Our service personnel are individuals. They are often characterised, as people such as Ian Lang did disgracefully in the referendum debate last year, as being of the same mind, but they are not. They are individuals and have different views on things. However, I think that they would be of one mind in wanting to know why they were given one reason for being asked to put themselves in harm’s way—that is, weapons of mass destruction—and then, after many of them died, given another reason. Regime change was the excuse—the fig leaf—that was used after the war to try to justify some of the actions. I hope that the Chilcot inquiry will remove that fig leaf when it eventually reports.
Who wants those answers and why do we discuss the issues? We have heard the answers from some of the other speeches. Rose Gentle wants the answers. Is that wrong? Should she wait to have another debate on the health service or educational psychologists? Does she not have a right to have her views represented in the Parliament as well? The family of Allan Douglas also wants to have answers, as Kevin Stewart said. There is also the deafening silence of 179 deceased souls. They want to have answers as well and why should they not? Why should they wait for longer than the entire second world war to have them?
We heard from Kenny MacAskill about the alacrity with which the Nuremberg trials were carried out because of the gravity of what had happened and because the need to try to get to the truth of the events very soon after they happened was huge. However, I heard somebody on the Labour benches say in a self-congratulatory tone that Labour called for the inquiry. Aye, but that was six years after the war had taken place and, as Willie Rennie said, after the Labour Party had had a chance to vote for an inquiry three or four times and refused to do so. It took that long. How much information was lost in that time and how many personal testimonies could no longer be found because of the delay?
Does the cabinet secretary, who is a reasonable person, accept that there is a need for total integrity behind the report when it is published and that the people about whom he is talking would be better served by such integrity, just as the victims of hepatitis C will require total integrity? That can be achieved only if the due processes are seen to have been carried out and the inquiry does not have a false publication date placed on it by politicians.
First, I deprecate the analogy that Alex Fergusson drew between the hepatitis C investigation and the Chilcot inquiry. The two do not stand comparison.
Of course the inquiry must be conducted in the correct way—everybody understands that. The point is: why has it taken six years for it to happen and why did Chilcot say at the start of 2011 that it would be done in a few months? The important point is that it has been delayed unreasonably. In the House of Commons today, Alex Fergusson’s colleague David Davis pointed the finger expressly at Whitehall. I might be wrong, but I think that Jack Straw said the same thing. They are saying that something is going on to delay the process, other than the Maxwellisation that we have heard about.
It is a scandal. I would have liked Alex Fergusson to have attached a higher priority to the needs of the families of those who died or those who were injured than he did to issues of process. Their needs are far more important, and the UK Government should have shown some urgency in its handling of the matter. It is unfortunate that that is not happening.
I believe that it is very important for the Parliament and the Scottish Government to note the huge sacrifice—it is sometimes the ultimate sacrifice—that members of our armed forces make in preserving our safety and security. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actions of individuals, there is no doubt that, as the First Minister said, our service personnel and their families deserve our complete support. We betray rather than serve the interests of those people if we try to sweep the issue under the carpet or endlessly avoid debating it, as others have suggested that we should do. As part of the support that we provide, we should provide those service personnel who returned and the families of those who did not with the answers that they deserve, and we must do so without further delay.
For those reasons, I am proud to support the motion in the First Minister’s name.