they and the valleys are in our thoughts today. i passionately believe we were wrong to invade iraq but i am second to none in my admiration for the dedication of our servicemen and women. everyone knows that the invasion of iraq was in the biggest foreign policy mistake in this country has made in generations. the single most controversial decision taken by government since then so i am staggered that the prime minister today is seeking to come out of that error, fatal for summoning of britain's sons and daughters by covering up the path that led to its parent liberal democrats called for in part to 11 conduct conduct of the era for for many years finally the prime minister succeeded to that demand but it is so often taken a step in the right direction and missed the fundamental point. a secret inquiry conducted by a

grant these hand-picked by the prime minister is not what britain needs. does the prime minister not understand the purpose of an inquiry? is not just to produce a set of conclusions but to allow the people of britain to come to terms with them mistake made in their name. i have met the families of the soldiers who have lost their lives in iraq and just an hour ago and asked me to speak in their names and tell him that nothing short of a fully public inquiry held in the open will satisfy them. while the prime minister not at least listen to what two those grieving families need? >> he says the inquiry has been held in private to protect national security -- in of to me suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor instead. why else would he wanted to report after the general election when we could have at least interim report to.

it is prepared possible to have a limited number of sensitive sessions in camera while retaining the fundamental principle that the vast bulk of the inquiry not just a few public sessions is recommended by the conservatives, should be open to all i'm grateful he has listened to my representations' an extended day inquiry to be full and to give it full access to the documents and files it will need. but i am disappointed he made such a feeble attempt to secure a consensus on a panel that will conduct the inquiry. the experience at least like the one being held in the netherlands shows that consensus can be considered only if the government can tax painstaking consultation over a prolonged time. why did the prime minister not to even attempt that sort of a constructive discussion with other party is? the government mr. speaker must not be allowed to close the book on this war as it opened in

secrecy. last week he stood there and spoke eloquently about the need for more public accountability and transparency, this was his first test -- he has failed, he has chosen secrecy instead. for six years we have watched our brave servicemen and women putting their lives on the line for a war we did not support and could not understand. to rebuild public trust, the inquiry must be held in public. will this be to even now reconsider? will he make this inquiry a healing process for the nation where will he turn his back on the legitimate demands of the british people once again? >> [inaudible] as a result of what has happened in iraq and nothing anybody that says today takes away from our concern about the news of these families

and our respect for them. i do want to answer an specific however about the inquiry itself. the inquiry is to learn the lessons of what's happened, it will cover the run-up to the war, the conflict itself and reconstruction after the conflict. i can think of no riemann's neck of a broader leading the events leading up to the conflict itself and the of reconstruction after it coming it covers eight years of our history and will be a very detailed work that can be done. the inquiry will be able to call any witness and able to call for any evidence, the report will then be published and debated in this house. it is exactly the way the franks inquiry went about its work and to be fair to him he disagrees with using franks as a model of all the opposition party have always wanted francs to be the model. i have to say however, that we have to take into account national security considerations and had to take into account the

capability and knowledge about our armed forces, security services, the missions they are undergoing at the moment and take into account also what serving officers went on to say to the inquiry and all these things i think he would come to recognize involved in degree of confidentiality that doesn't make for an inquiry which is a public inquiry or all witnesses, and give evidence in public and the lesson, of course, of public inquiries is this -- they take many years because everybody who comes before a public inquiry was to be represented by a lawyer as we know from others that are taking place of the moment one of which is already taken eight years and is no nearer to completion now than it was a year ago paragon i would also ask him to bear in mind that this will come back to the house itself. it is up to the inquiry to decide how long is going to take to do its work, i do think a comprehensive piece of work rather than piecemeal reports is the best way they can report to

the house and they will in the end decide how long to do the work but to cover eight years of history in the most detailed way will i think he agrees take some time. all witnesses and evidence can come before the inquiry. i hope you agree on reflection the names of those who have been selected and ask to take part in this inquiry are people of high reputation took into a great job of work for this country. >> mr. speaker, i saw no secret materials, no private printing and a 30 year involvement with the iraqi opposition. and i personally would want to get from the inquiry as to why prior to the war in this country failed to indict leading members of the iraqi regime when we have the legal evidence to enable us

to do so in the end? >> i am grateful for the work by a honorable friend has done in iraq with the kurdish population, she is regarded very highly by all those i meet when i go. >> particularly for the way she has protected the interests of the kurdish population to otherwise under saddam hussein were facing very difficult times. and she is party to binding that group together with the rest of the country to make for a stronger future. obviously the inquiry will look at events from 2001 onwards but, of course, of the inquiry phil's necessary to look at behind that and before that they will do so. >> mr. speaker, as someone who supported the war and i have to say and is timidly continues to believe that what was done at that time will turn out to be a cause for good and as stable iraq democratic iraq will be in force for good in the region. i also say to the prime minister, i hope that in that

basis he built consider some slight adjustments to this welcome inquiry. one is that there could be a slightly wider membership to include some ex military members and also to give a little more cutting edge some senior politicians -- i only recommend that because i think a committee without that eds will be a little less credible and further also because i believe there is ultimately nothing to hide. the reality is some of these hearings must be held in public and i urge the prime minister to think again about that. >> first of all, all the military personnel who are at a senior level and either retired or serving officers will be in a position to go to this inquiry in his imprint there given the chance to do so and is simply that they can speak frankly and that means the sessions would be better held in private than in public. i hope he will agree the military voice will be listened to as we try to learn the lessons of this war. as far as serving politicians are concerned, if you go back

over the eight years there isn't anybody in the house who would probably have not commented in detail on the iraqi situation and i think it's better to look for people outside this house who can take an objective view of the circumstances and also our seniors politically and i hope on reflection he will understand that the difference between the membership of the franks inquiry and a membership of this one is because of these reasons. as far as public sessions are concerned, look, the opposition calls for a grand style inquiry and an apparently well that it was held in private. the essence of franks was held in private and our people on the opposition benches want to change their mind that is their right to do so but it is completely inconsistent with what they said previously. >> thank you mr. speaker. i too well, the removal of the brutal fascist regime of saddam hussein and i think the iraqis are much better country today than ever could have been with

that regime continuing. i believe in would be import however, that this inquiry should also look at the origins of the conflict which to concern in 2001. we were bombing iraq in 1998, saddam hussein was gassing kurds in 1998 and there is a context in the history and i hope the inquiry will look at the context in the history and not just art events in 9/11. >> i do agree there is a series of events leading up to what happens when the conflict broke out in 2003. and no doubt the inquiry will be free to take some into consideration but must focus itself on a time which is an immediate run into the conflict, the conflict itself and reconstruction after words. i have to remind that we've had four separate inquiries already into some of the events surrounding iraq, the foreign affairs committee and intelligence security inquiry, the gitmo inquiry and if this is not as if the issues have not been addressed.

they have been but it is important to look at this on the ground because we want to do it and sometimes we forget this is what we want to do is learn the lessons of they can be applied for the future. >> mr. speaker, we all well, this but the important issue is put differently and iraqis could not have lost their lives and we agree in mourning the loss of our soldiers, their injuries, but should we regret the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the iraqis? could i also say to him when he is arraigned prime minister netanyahu could he not point out it isn't just the expansion he is not putting up, the similar -- of the settlements are illegal and there is no state solution unless the settlements will be closed down and that is something that no one is talking about and we won't get peace without willingness to move on the settlements. i agree with us to said the

membership of this inquiry is rather feeble, we do need senior politicians to understand political decision making and to new senior military people who can understand the decisions that are made and surely the inquiry should be allowed to take hearings in private or in public as it sees fit rather than kept completely secret. >> first of all, i do regret the lives of all of those who suffered an and the loss of life among senate committee and any nation and we regret the loss of iraqi lives but we can't deny the responsibility for what has happened in iraq at the hands of saddam hussein and both of us who served in the government know exactly what saddam hussein was trying to do and how he had broken every single united nations resolution he said he would uphold. as far as israel is concerned, i agree with her that the settlements must be stopped. i agree this is the advice we

should give to the new israeli government and in addition to embracing a two-stage solution that will give security to israel as well as a possibility of viable state to the palestinians an announcement about stopping the growth of settlements and, indeed, halting settlements is something of importance in the peace process forward. as far as the inquiry, i just beg to differ -- disagree. i feel that the people who have been selected for this inquiry have got respective positions in the public life of this country and when people look at what they've achieved a will see the have a great deal to offer and i just repeat in the last eight years other members who have said absolutely nothing have not been involved in any fault on iraq is far better to have a non-partisan and impartial group looking at the issues. >> can i welcome the inquiry and say i am surprised the two leaders of the opposition party who are insisting that their own political placement should be

put on this inquiry. now is the time when parliament is not held at hyoscine to have an independent inquiry -- the. foreign policy tied to this government and will this be to extend the inquiry to take evidence from people in iraq, those who suffered under saddam hussein dictatorship and those who are dream from it and then accept an onslaught from g hy-vee islamic extremists from iranians and syria against which our troops held resist. there are responsible for the death of people and iraq and we should not let the law go out that there evil is in any way attributable to decisions of this and the other democratic barons of the world. >> i am grateful to my right honorable friend and the interest he has taken in the issues over many years paragon have to say that sometimes in this house we should have humility to accept our people outside the thing to be perhaps more than we can to an objective

and impartial review of what has happened in iraq both in the run-up to the conflict and in the reconstruction taken place afterwards. i do think on reflection when people look at the list of names before them there will take the view that this is not only a very responsible group but when it that can conduct this review with great efficiency and great care. i also agree that we want the power to listen to all voices that may have something to say to them but that will be a matter. >> as a declared it skeptic as early as november 92 of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent opponents of the invasion of by iraq, may i put it to the prime minister that the disastrous effect of the war has been to make iran the dominant power in the whole of the middle east and that what

the british people will understand is that after the capture of baghdad, the political management of the occupation was extremely incompetent and not recognized in america and europe and what the british people want is an explanation well before the general election 11 months from now of how he came about this mr. blair was able to persuade a this parliament to vote in favor of the four on fax which he knew were not standing up to proper examination? >> mr. speaker, i disagree been shown at a point of inquiry to look to those issues and that is exactly what will happen, it will look also whether there are failures in the reconstruction as well as before that and it is going to report on these issues and what happened after the fall of baghdad will be as much as subject of the report as what happened before so i hope he

will agree that all these issues, are going to be looked at by this inquiry and lived happily in the. >> mr. speaker, in the history of this conflict to political matters cry out for explanation why than any other. the first consists of why this house was never informed of the contents of the downing street minutes which revealed knowledge six months before the conflict that the bush administration had decided on the inevitability of war when everett the concessions were made. the second requires explanation is why the attorney general's opinion on the legality of the war was never shown to the cabinet's before the decision to go to war was made. and either of those matters, neither of them a wide state security. neither of them require balances of lawyers. why can't they be ventilation and canvassed in public and

without delay? >> my honorable friend as deeply held views on the issues he has just raised, no doubt he also will be able to give them during the course of inquiry and perhaps he may wish to offer evidence to the inquiry if he has aids. >> may i say to the prime minister that i profoundly regret the nature of the inquiry which he has announced and a disappointing response to what is by common consent regarded a catastrophic foreign policy decision. on a form of inquiry which he proposes can he tell us if it will have the power not to ask for witnesses by to compel witnesses to attend a and to put them on oath so that their evidence may be verified against that background? let me ask this question finally, how does a thing the kind of inquiry he proposes will satisfy the millions of britons

who marched against this war when the inquiry will meet in private even when the national interest will not require it? >> i sometimes think that the liberal party are forgetting this is an independent inquiry, it is independent of governments and secondly it lasts -- it covers eight years, the buildup and reconstruction after it, and as far as witnesses are concerned i cannot think of the inquiry being satisfied if people they want to interview refused to be interviewed and i expect everybody who has asked to give evidence will give evidence and i believe that is exactly what will happen but for the liberal party in anybody in this house to jump to the conclusion that this is in some ways not independent is completely wrong, it is an independent inquiry independent of government able to take all papers and into any witnesses. i know that the liberal party wanted to be held in public but i think they know also about what happens when there are

public inquiries, that means lawyers and lawyers or as people can feel free to give evidence and give it frankly about what we want to hear and that is the lessons we can learn from the war he mad. >> the prime minister did not answer the key question which is, will evidence being given under oath? there is a history of this matter of confiscation and a deliberate deceit by some agencies and individuals proven to see now nothing short of people giving evidence under oath will be sufficient to give this inquiry veracity and integrity and i ask him now, with a give us an assurance that evidence will be under oath? if not, why not? >> the terms under which given will be a matter we will comment on and report later but i'm absolutely sure that everybody who is giving evidence -- will have to tell the truth to this committee and they are under an

obligation by the terms of reference of the committee to do so. >> mr. speaker, the delay in this announcement by the prime minister and the details and the scope of the inquiry have plainly been designed so that it reports the other side of a general election, but given that if i could have the prime minister's attention for a moment, i am trying to ask a question -- given the parliament and people weren't misled about the causes and reasons for this war, will this be two not answer the point made by the leader of the opposition about the need for an interim report so that we can learn some of these lessons about this government's before the government has his dates with the british electric? >> mr. speaker, the franc's inquiry was a report that was done without having an interim report, the opposition asked for a frank style inquiry and the french style inquiry are having

will look at the run up to, the conflict itself, and the reconstruction and the issues about the construction after riss. i think that is a pretty comprehensive inquiry that was a time the town and the best possible way and i thank you accept the committee needs the time to do that and should have the time. this is a full report on which we want to learn lessons for the future and i think that is the issue. what lessons we can and for our military, diplomacy, security and, of course, for our country's reputation abroad with the future -- that is that the essence of what we are doing. >> thank you mr. speaker. this inquiry is part of a process of holding the secretary's account, this house mechanism of holding the executive account and a member of the committee will also have experience of the limitations of select committees holding this. and i find it extremely difficult to accept as a member of parliament why we are giving

privileges to people asci this house under the guise of independence when we could have an inquiry at giving members of this house and select committee to give access to the kind of documents giving to these people and hearings and public and private with that kind of access come to a view? >> i understand you feel strongly but she must know there has been a former inquiry by such committee of this house, intelligence and security inquiry by a committee of this house and also the baller inquiry and also the hunter inquiry and we now have the inquiry to look at all the events of the last eight years, the run-up to the war,, to sell and reconstruction. i cannot think of anything wider than that and i do believe that given that this house has looked at this issue many times it is right that the privy council of inquiry get on with the job committed to be witnesses either members of this house or other people and to take evidence from anybody they wish to do so and

receive all papers from government and there's nothing that is going to be kept secret from them. this is a model of the franks inquiry and that is what we are following command thank you mr. speaker, can i add my control since -- condolences about those in afghanistan. there iraqi conflict has led to the death of 179 personnel, and 150,000 iraqi civilians. their loved ones want to know the cause of this war and why their loved ones failed. if every evidence session is held in private that may not be possible so will this be to think again about holding a secret inquiry, it's the wrong thing to do. >> mr. speaker, i disagree. the inquiry has got to take into account the interest of our national security, is got to look at the issues and reflect on the capability and appointed deborah troops in a way that it may not be best that has been

made public and also got to get people to talk frankly about what they believe are the lessons learned from this inquiry surrounded by lawyers and everybody else in the public arena is more difficult and he would have to a knowledge. i believe this will also be thorough and independent and i believe the results will be reported to this house. i think it is quite extraordinary that for weeks and months people have been calling for a frank style inquiry and now they have one and are trying to oppose it for cynical grounds. >> franks was 25 years ago and the whole climate of opinion has changed since the secret frank inquiry and i want the prime minister to understand that. i have hoped for a new politics of openness after last week. i am not prepared to except a secret inquiry into iraq and what the prime minister to think again. and can i ask this, why on earth

after everything he has been saying did and to consult with the official opposition and the liberal democrats and the other political parties on the terms of reverence, the membership, how long does it take? why did he take it upon himself again to tell us what was it is best interest? >> the cabinet secretary did discuss with the official opposition and liberal party issues related to this inquiry so he is wrong on his final point. as far as the wisdom of how we do this inquiry let us remember that there are issues of national security, issues related to our military, there are serving officers who may wish to give evidence and there are people working in other arenas at the moment. i don't think anybody who looked at this in detail was in the evidence that all these people who should give it should be given in public. i think there with respect director is a degree of confidentiality necessary and also understand reflection that if people are going to be frank

with the inquiry about the lessons to be learned they will want to give their evidence and private. just look at the alternative -- it would mean we would have a long inquiry last year's where everybody represented by a lawyer rather than themselves and that is not the way we're going to learn the lessons from this conflict. >> thank you mr. speaker, the evidence of the iranian elections of the weekend will demonstrate just how unstable this region is likely to be,. will this be to assure the house the plans and resources exist from a british military greengage mentor should of the iraqi government ask for it and not just to be left up to the americans? >> mr. speaker, i think the honorable member takes a great interest will know we have signed a new agreement with the iraqi government, about what support we can give in training, they will support we can give them and help in the short term and long term and obviously it

means significant reduction in troops, very few british tubes on the soil but close cooperation between our two countries and the arrangements we have a direct the government will be similar to the bilateral relationships that are strong and other parts of the region. >> i fully understand appropriate for mike right honorable friend prime minister to go into detail and not wishing to do anything to compromise the safety of the hostages -- can he give assurances despite a firm with a drawl would be fully involved in making every effort to secure the release of the five hostages and the bodyguards? >> i understand the concerns by honorable friend expresses and she's been a busy london asking of the welfare of the five hostages. this is something i have talked to prime minister maliki on vacation and pressed him to take an interest in this measure directly and he has and we're determined to secure the safe release of the hostages, some progress made in a great deal to

be done but it is permanently on our desk is an issue that's got to be dealt with in something that for the safety of these five people we are doing everything in our power to make sure they can come home. >> can i remind the prime minister he has yet to ask about evidence on oath. in his presentation of the operation charge of the nuys one can be forgiven for believing we have something to do in preparation of planning of operation. when the truth is it took place in a british responsibility without notice to us and the most graphic demonstration and that our troops have been invited to take a role way in in advance of the political influence of their leaders and away in vans of the resources that the nation was willing or able to vote to support them in a role there asked to undertake. the number of fatalities in afghanistan is sadly about to overtake the number of fatalities in iraq. there are important lessons for what is happening in afghanistan and will