Recent parliamentary activity

Speeches

June 30, 2009: Topical Questions | Oral Answers to Questions - Foreign and Commonwealth Office | Commons debates

Last week, the Foreign Secretary repeated the Prime Minister's claim that the Iraq inquiry had not been set up to establish civil or criminal liability. Does that mean that the Government propose to grant legal immunity to any witness who gives evidence to the inquiry—and if so, by what means?

June 29, 2009: Building Britain's Future | Oral Answers to Questions - Work and Pensions | Commons debates

In a statement entitled "Building Britain's Future" is not the absence of any reference to defence policy and its financial implications for the British economy a significant omission? Do the Government not now accept that there is an overwhelming and urgent need for a full-scale defence review, to bring commitments and resources into balance?

June 24, 2009: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [14th allotted day] | Commons debates

If the House resolves to give the inquiry the authority to compel witnesses and to put them on oath, that is exercisable against any witness. Why is the House not being asked to provide that safeguard, so that the inquiry commands public confidence?

June 24, 2009: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [14th allotted day] | Commons debates

Not for the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I believe that the decision to join the United States in an illegal war against Iraq was based upon a flawed premise and has done catastrophic damage to British interests. That may well disqualify me from membership of a committee of investigation, but it most certainly does not prevent me from passing judgment on the form of that committee and its composition.

The Government have been partially saved from themselves by Sir John Chilcot, by General Sir Mike Jackson and by the many people who have publicly said that they accepted and, indeed, wished that proceedings in which they might feature should be in public. This evening, Parliament can save the Government further by passing the motion that stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, because the responsibility for the establishment of the inquiry should rest with this House. Anything else is a dereliction of our duty.

There are no precise terms of reference. That issue has been somehow brushed aside. How will we test the committee's success unless we test its conclusions against the terms of reference? There are no members with military experience. Who understands the pressures of command when sending 40,000 young men and women into the middle east—with the prospect at least of casualties—at the same time as following the established principle that one takes one's instructions from one's political masters? No one does, other than someone who has had to discharge those responsibilities.

Who understands the political responsibility other than someone who has been associated with a decision to deploy British forces in circumstances where they may lose their lives or be injured? Assessors are no substitute for this reason: assessors advise; they do not decide or take upon themselves the responsibility for the decisions that are made. Parliament tonight should assert itself; it should assert itself to own the process; and it should set the conditions for the inquiry. They should include, in order to put aside any questions of uncertainty, a specific power to compel witnesses to attend and to put them on oath.

There is now no dispute but that the most sensitive material touching on intelligence cannot be heard in public. However, we should have a presumption that everything will be heard in public unless the national interest demands it. Government embarrassment and national interest are not synonymous with each other; they are wholly separate and distinct.

I shall set out some questions that I hope the inquiry will address. What was the then Prime Minister's motive in establishing a policy of standing steadfastly by the Bush Administration? Did the Cabinet agree with that policy? Did the Cabinet ever discuss that policy? Is it the case that by July 2002 at a meeting in Downing street, the minutes of which have been leaked, as it happens to The Daily Telegraph, Mr. Blair was committed to military action along with the United States? Is it the case that by that meeting Mr. Blair was committed to regime change?

When did the Cabinet first discuss military action? When did the Cabinet first discuss regime change? And on how many occasions thereafter did it discuss either or both implications of Government policy? Why did the Cabinet not see the Attorney-General's full opinion of 7 March 2003, before military action commenced? Who took the decision that the Cabinet should see only the one-page answer to a question no doubt placed by arrangement in the other place? Why did the Chief of the Defence Staff insist on specific legal advice on the legality of what he was being asked to do? Was the Cabinet advised that the intelligence assessment was that war against Iraq would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom? If not, why not? Was the Cabinet informed that the 45-minute claim related only to battlefield nuclear weapons?

What do those questions have in common? None raises an issue of intelligence sensitivity. They can all be asked and they can all be answered in public, and they should be so.

June 24, 2009: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [14th allotted day] | Commons debates

I am not sure that I am going to be entirely helpful to my hon. Friend, for which I hope that he will forgive me. The material part of the quotation that he read was the words "by consent". In those circumstances, if a witness came before something that might not be proceedings in the technical sense and he or she declined to give consent, clearly the provisions of the statute to which he referred would not apply. As has just been pointed out, the straightforward way to do this is either with a piece of legislation or a resolution of the House empowering Sir John Chilcot's inquiry to put witnesses on oath and, more to the point, compelling them to attend.

June 24, 2009: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [14th allotted day] | Commons debates

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, if I am still allowed to call him that. Before he leaves the question of evidence on oath, does he understand that Sir John does not have the power to put witnesses on oath? He might have that power if this were an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, or if the House conferred it upon him. That is all the more reason for the procedures to be within the ownership of the House of Commons, not that of the Prime Minister.

June 24, 2009: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [14th allotted day] | Commons debates

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

June 17, 2009: Public Expenditure | Oral Answers to Questions - Scotland | Commons debates

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the sterile exchanges in recent days about the future of public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Will he promise to put aside the smoke and mirrors and to level with the people of Scotland about the consequences for public expenditure of the inevitable and necessary efforts to reduce record deficits?

June 15, 2009: Iraq | Oral Answers to Questions - Children, Schools and Families | Commons debates

May I say to the Prime Minister that I profoundly regret the nature of the inquiry that he has announced? It is a disappointing response to what is, by common consent, regarded as a catastrophic foreign policy decision. On the form of inquiry that he proposes, can he tell us whether it will have the power not to ask for witnesses, but to compel witnesses to attend and to put them on oath so that their evidence may be verified against that background? Let me ask him, finally, how he thinks the kind of inquiry that he proposes will satisfy the millions of Britons who marched against the war, when the inquiry will meet in private even when the national interest will not require it?

June 10, 2009: Constitutional Renewal | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to reforming the Select Committee system, but would it not make sense to give Select Committees real powers, such as, for example, providing that whenever a new Secretary of State is appointed to the Cabinet he or she must be subject to confirmation by the appropriate departmental Select Committee? Would that not be particularly appropriate when the Prime Minister is appointing Secretaries of State from the House of Lords and when he is considering the major constitutional step of appointing a new First Secretary of State?

Written questions

July 1, 2009: Defence: Inflation Index | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in establishing a defence-specific inflation index.

June 26, 2009: White Phosphorus | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any munitions containing white phosphorus manufactured in the UK have been used in theatres of military operation against UK armed forces in the last 10 years.

June 23, 2009: Low Flying: Complaints | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received by the Low Flying Complaints and Enquiries Unit from residents of (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each month in the last five years.

June 22, 2009: Armed Forces: Foreigners | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government have received representation from other governments on the employment of their citizens in the UK armed forces since 1997.

June 18, 2009: Low Flying: Complaints | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low-flying military aircraft have been received by each military establishment in the UK in each of the last five years.

June 17, 2009: Armed Forces: Housing | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on upgrading accommodation for serving personnel and their families in (a) the UK and (b) Scotland since 2000.

June 3, 2009: Armed Forces: Foreigners | Defence | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 11 May 2009, Official Report, column 608W, whether his Department has received representation from other governments on the employment of their citizens in the UK armed forces between 2000 and the issue of his Written Ministerial Statement on army nationality policy of 2 February 2009, Official Report, columns 33-4WS.

June 3, 2009: Income Support: Mortgages | Work and Pensions | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information his Department holds on the number of people receiving assistance from his Department with the cost of meeting mortgage interest repayments.

June 2, 2009: Cancer: Health Services | Health | Written Answers

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has provided to external organisations to raise awareness of and provide patient support for those diagnosed with (a) breast cancer, (b) leukaemia, (c) cervical cancer and (d) prostate cancer in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

June 2, 2009: Exports: White Phosphorus | Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform | Written Answers

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform pursuant to the answer of 23 February 2009, Official Report, column 19W, on ammunition: exports, whether any of the transfers listed in the Government's annual and quarterly strategic export control reports since 1999 were for military devices containing white phosphorus.

Source: TheyWorkForYou.com