Hansard

In discussing the motion, we should reflect that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. As we consider the lessons and implications of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to take the country into that war, our first thought should be for the casualties of the conflict. Since March 2003, 179 UK servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq. The total allied losses are close to 5,000, and an estimated 120,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the conflict. Estimates of the total casualty list in Iraq are, of course, much higher. Every single one of those losses, as well as every one of those who have been physically and mentally scarred by events in Iraq, is a tragedy, and it is right that we honour the bravery and sacrifice of those who are put in harm’s way.

However, those facts—raw and shocking as they are—go nowhere near telling the full horror and the true human catastrophe of the invasion and its aftermath. That endures to this day, and in many ways is incalculable. We must never forget the cost of war, and we must never forget our on-going obligations for the welfare of our service personnel and veterans. We owe all the men and women in our armed forces respect, gratitude and support.

Last week, Labour and Conservative members expressed concern that we were going to have this debate at all. It is quite extraordinary that, given the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, its implications, and the events and consequences of that conflict, any member should not want to reflect on what happened, why it happened and, above all, what lessons can be learned.

All of us should remember that while we as politicians debate these issues and have done so for 10 years now, many tens—indeed, hundreds—of thousands either are not here to have this debate because they were casualties of the conflict or are living with injury or disability as a consequence of it.

We hold the debate as we still await the final report of the Iraq inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot and established in 2009. That inquiry, which was established too late and still has not reported 10 years after the conflict, seeks answers around a sequence of events that took our armed forces into a war that, in my opinion, was illegal and unnecessary.

Perhaps some of the reluctance to debate this issue arises from the suggestion, made, for example, in The Guardian on 16 November 2011, that the report had been delayed again because of

“Damning criticism of Tony Blair and the way his government led Britain into invading Iraq, and continuing rows over the disclosure of secret documents”.

It is almost absurd that the only public official who has resigned as a consequence of the Iraq war was Greg Dyke, the director general of the BBC.

I welcome the Chilcot inquiry. Indeed, I was party to a motion in the House of Commons in 2006 that tried to force such an inquiry much earlier and which failed by only 25 votes.

In the same way, 10 years ago, I was in the House of Commons debating the question of going to war. In that debate, the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used extraordinary eloquence to justify the conflict; in his speech, he said that it was “palpably absurd” to suggest that Saddam Hussein had “unilaterally” destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, the palpable absurdity was Mr Blair’s own. He took the United Kingdom into war on the basis of a gross deception and in contravention of international law.

We now know that the Prime Minister’s statements were inconsistent with the information that he had from intelligence services at the time. We now know that the presentation of the dodgy dossier was deliberately designed to excite fears and exaggerate the threat to international order posed by Saddam Hussein. I have here an example of how the dodgy dossier was portrayed: the headline on the front page of the London Evening Standard from September 2002 says “45 MINUTES FROM ATTACK”. According to the dodgy dossier, the UK’s bases in Cyprus were under threat from Saddam Hussein when, as we now know, he had no weapons of mass destruction that were capable of being used in the first place.

We know that the information from intelligence was exaggerated; small quantities in that intelligence became major amounts. The threat was presented as being major when in fact the intelligence said that it was minor.

We also know that eminent figures from the time have said conclusively that the war was indeed illegal. The former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed in 2004 that from a UN charter point of view the war was illegal, and Philippe Sands, QC and professor of international law, described the war as “wholly illegal”, pointing out that it was not even justified on the classic ground of self-defence.

Most damning of all, as we await the Chilcot inquiry’s conclusions, we now know from the evidence of the UK ambassador to Washington, who was with the Prime Minister during his conversations with President Bush, that the Prime Minister pre-committed himself—come what may—to stand with President Bush, regardless of what actions were taken. Sir Christopher Meyer said that the then Prime Minister’s mistake on Iraq flowed from a “black-and-white” world view that was

“more evangelical than the American ... Right”.

That damning account, which is backed by White House staffers of the time, removes any lingering shadow of doubt that Tony Blair’s weapons of mass destruction claims were falsehoods designed as a ruse and a deception. Most indefensible of all was the justification of war on Iraq on the basis that it would reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack even though, as we now know, intelligence services were saying exactly the opposite at the time.

We should acknowledge those who took an honourable position in the Government of the day. The late Robin Cook, Lord Hunt, John Denham, Bob Blizzard and Anne Campbell all resigned from the Government and voted against military action 10 years ago. We should also remember that, in his personal statement to the House of Commons at the time, the then former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook touched on the issue of Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, saying that:

“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 March 2003; Vol 401, c 727.]

If Robin Cook knew that, as he resigned from the Government, the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, why did not the Prime Minister, who was acting on the same information, also know?

Let me acknowledge the position of others, such as the principled position taken by Charles Kennedy, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, who expressed concerns about the legitimacy of military action being taken outwith a further Security Council resolution.

Let us remind ourselves of the central fact that we fought the war because of an arsenal of weapons that proved to be non-existent. Many thousands of people paid with their lives for that deception. The illegality of the war in Iraq is a disgrace without parallel in modern times. The shame of it will echo down the ages for Mr Blair and all those who were complicit in sending young men and women to risk their lives on the basis of a gigantic fraud.

Sending armed forces into the front line is the most serious and significant choice that any nation can make. I think that it is inconceivable that, if deciding on such things for ourselves in our Parliament, we would have possibly made such a decision. It is true that this Parliament narrowly voted against an anti-war amendment 10 years ago. It is also true that, by a very narrow majority, Scottish members in the House of Commons voted in favour of the conflict. However, it is inconceivable that that decision making was not based on the loyalty of some people towards their Prime Minister and their party, as opposed to a genuine estimation of the reasons for going into conflict. It is inconceivable that any Parliament—in this place—charged with the defence of this country would have possibly voted to take this country into that illegal conflict.