Hansard

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.