Foreign Secretary David Miliband made clear that the Iraq Inquiry will be 'comprehensive and independent' during a statement to Parliament on Wednesday 24 June.
Read the statement

Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my RH and Hon Friends.

Britain’s involvement in Iraq has been one of the longest and gravest military and civilian deployments abroad since the Second World War.  It cost the lives of 179 British servicemen and women, along with 100s more seriously injured.  We will all wish to pay tribute to their sacrifices, and to those of their families.  In addition I am sure the House will join me in recognising the courage and selflessness of all military and civilian personnel who have served and continue to serve in Iraq, and also the courage of the brave Iraqi people, many, many thousands of whom have also lost their lives, their livelihoods, their homes.  Profound issues of international relations, nation building and regional security were and are at issue.

I believe this house is united on the point that the significant nature of Britain’s involvement in Iraq demands an inquiry; and indeed, the Government has been clear since 2007 that an inquiry should be held once British forces no longer had a combat role in Iraq.  It needs to be a comprehensive, independent inquiry, “not a trial or an impeachment, but an effort to learn for the future”… as the RHG said in March 2008.

Mr Speaker, the Government’s case today is simple: Sir John Chilcott’s Inquiry, and his proposed method of conducting it, will meet all reasonable aspirations for an Iraq Inquiry. The combination of his remit, his membership plus expert advisers, his commitment to public sessions for as much of the proceedings as possible, will deliver for the country an Inquiry of insight and value.  

Yes, the Government has listened. There is a balance to be struck between speed and confidentiality on the one hand, and comprehensiveness and transparency on the other. The balance now proposed by Sir John Chilcott is new but the Government believes it can be effective and deserves strong support.

Mr Speaker, there have been four previous debates about an Iraq Inquiry. And there have been four demands from the official Opposition in each case:

   * First that the Inquiry be comprehensive: it should have, and I quote the Hon Member for Woodspring speaking in the most recent debate on this issue, on 25 March this year: “the fullest remit, including the run-up to the war, the conduct of the war, and the preparation for, and conduct of, the post-conflict period”
   * second, that the Inquiry be independent.  Each of the three motions the RHG has moved on this subject - in June 2007, in March 2008 and again in March this year - has referred to the need for an inquiry by “an independent committee of Privy Councillors”
   * third, that the Inquiry draw on expertise from outside the world of politics.  The RHG, on 31 October 2006, said that “a committee of seven members of parliament would necessarily be a partisan committee and the credibility of its findings would be correspondingly reduced”.  
   * fourth, a Franks style Inquiry.  Repeated in motions, amendments, and speeches, the RHG has insisted that the Inquiry be modelled on the 1982 Franks Inquiry into the events leading up to the Falklands conflict, with the findings debated in Parliament.

The truth Mr Speaker is that all four points are reasonable points.  All deserve serious consideration.  All draw on precedent as well as common sense. All will be addressed in my speech today.

First, I want to deal with the scope of the Inquiry. The concern here is that the Inquiry be able to address itself to all aspects of preparation for the military campaign, the military campaign itself, and post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction.  This is important. At various points there have been allegations for example that the Inquiry would not be able to look at the run-up to the War, or the decisions in Basra in 2006-2008.

These concerns are not well founded. Mr Speaker, the Chilcott Inquiry will have the widest possible remit. The Committee will be free not just to examine all the evidence, as I will document below, but also to pursue what it considers to be the most important issues. The scope is deliberately not limited.  Because nothing is ruled out, everything is ruled in.  As the PM said last week, “no inquiry has looked at such a long period, and no inquiry has the powers to look in so much breadth”.

Second, independence. The Prime Minister wrote to Sir John Chilcot on 17 June assuring him of the Government’s commitment to a thorough and independent inquiry. Sir John confirms in his reply of 21 June: “I welcome the fact that I and my colleagues are free to decide independently how best to fulfil our remit”.

Third, cooperation from Government and access to Government papers and people. The Prime Minister has made clear not just to Sir John Chilcott but to all Ministers and former Ministers the need for full cooperation with the Committee. The Cabinet Secretary has written similarly to departments.  Access to papers in official archives will be similarly unrestricted.

I was asked in the last debate in this House whether the Committee’s access to documents that would include all Cabinet papers and I confirm that will be the case. We have also been asked whether this includes access to papers from foreign governments held by the Government here: again I confirm that the PM has said this will indeed be the case.

In respect of ensuring that witnesses give evidence with the greatest possible candour, Sir John has confirmed that he and his colleagues will consider whether it is possible for there to be a process whereby evidence is given under oath, taking into account the non-judicial nature of the inquiry. Again, this is an issue on which I think it is right and proper to leave to the discretion of Sir John and his colleagues.

Let me fourthly deal with the issue of membership. The Government has proposed a Committee of senior public servants and figures from outside government. They are recognised as outstanding figures in their respective fields.

It is also not the case that the Committee lacks military insight. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the official historian of the Falklands campaign, and the Professor of War Studies at King’s College London since 1982. Sir Martin Gilbert has written extensively on military matters, including the First and Second World Wars. Sir Roderick Lyne was Private Secretary for Defense and Foreign Affairs to the then-Prime Minister from 1993-96. Sir John Chilcott himself, as a former Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, has extensive experience of military and security affairs.

Moreover, Sir John Chilcott has himself said that he will seek support from expert assessors on not only military, but also legal, international development and reconstruction matters. These will be expert advisers working for the Committee.

Fifth, the conduct of the Inquiry. The Prime Minister has invited Sir John Chilcott to consult with leading members of this House and come forward with proposals for the conduct of the Inquiry to ensure that those appearing before the Inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness.

There are trade offs on the issue of the public nature of the inquiry when it comes to intelligence and other issues.

In 2006 the RHG called for “an inquiry of the kind led by Lord Franks into the Falklands war”. In 2008 he said: “The case we have set out in the motion is for a Privy Council inquiry, modelled on the inquiry that took place after the Falklands war”.  And in 2009, moving another motion for an independent Privy Council inquiry, he agreed with an intervention from his own side that what was needed was “a full Falklands-type inquiry”.

But Franks was private. Like Butler. Unlike Hutton. Sir John Chilcott has set out that there will be four main parts to the Inquiry, balancing public and private aspects:

   * first, examination and analysis of documentary evidence; this will be crucial in deciding the course of the Inquiry, including selection of witnesses and detailed lines of questioning; it will be definition occur in private
   * second, public proceedings; Sir John Chilcott has said it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the Inquiry as possible in public, consistent with national security and the candour of written and oral evidence; the Prime Minister and Sir John Chilcott have had close to the front of their minds the strong and legitimate interest especially of families of those who lost their lives in Iraq and Sir John has made clear his determination to facilitate public or private presentation of views.
   * third, private proceedings; these will be important to allow examination of matters relating to national security; classified information will be protected, and witnesses will be able to speak without fear of legal action; intelligence questions obviously fit into this category.  It is also important to protect the position and relationships of current public servants while ensuring the Committee gets the full benefit of their expertise
   * and fourth, the publication and debate of the final report; the Prime Minister made clear last week that all relevant evidence should be published except where national security or similar considerations prevent that, and Sir John has confirmed his determination to follow this pattern.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the truth is that for two years the Government and Opposition have been agreed on the need for a Privy Council inquiry into Iraq.  We now have one.  We have been agreed it should be broad-ranging.  The Chilcot Inquiry will be.  We have agreed it should be independent and draw on non-political expertise.  That is the model we have proposed.

We also now have a widely respected Chairman setting out the foundation of his approach to the balance of public versus private hearings.  The result is an Inquiry which can fulfil the mandate given to it of learning lessons which strengthen our diplomacy, our military and our democracy.  

The RHG cannot credibly claim any fundamental disagreement with the Government about the nature, terms, scope or organisation of the Inquiry.  Sham outrage and never mind bandwagon-ism and opportunism are good reasons to vote down the motion.  Even better is that the Government amendment offers the country an Inquiry that meets the needs of the country, and I commend it to the House.