we were bombing@@@@$rr$rr$# they have been addressed but it is important to look at this because what we want to do anything sometimes holy. this is what we want to do is learn the lesson so that they can be applied for the future.

>> clare short. >> we all welcome the demise of the regime but important questions could be done differently. could saddam hussein been indicted in could have a lot of iraqis not have lost their lives? we agreed the loss of the soldiers and their injuries, but would she and we regret the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis in the displacement of millions? cut i also say to him, could you point out to them that it is not the expansion of the settlements that he is not-- the settlements are illegal and and there will be new two-state solution unless the settlements are going to be closed down and that is something that no one is talking about and we won't give peace without willingness to move on the settlements. thirdly i agree with us to say the membership of this inquiry is a rather feeble. we do need senior politician to understand political decision-making an immediate need senior military people who can understand the decisions

that were made in surely, inquiry is welcome but surely it should be allowed to take hearings in private or in public as it seems that rather than kept completely secret. >> first of all, i do regret the lives of all those who suffered and a loss of life amongst in the committee in any nation and we regret the loss of iraq lives but we can't deny the responsibility for what has happened in iraq, lay at the hands of saddam hussein in both of us who served in the government knew what saddam hussein was trying to do and how he had broken every single united nations resolution that he said we would uphold. as far as israel is concerned i agree with her that the settlements must be stopped. i agree that this is the vice we should give to the new israeli government, that in addition to embracing a tuesdays solution that will give security to israel as well as the possibility of a viable state to

the palestinians, then an announcement about stopping the growth of settlements and indeed halting settlements is something that is important to move the peace process forward. as far as the increased concern i just beg to disagree. i feel that people who have been selected for this inquiry have got their respective positions in the public life of this country and when people look at what they have achieved it will see the of a great deal to offer and i just repeat, in the last eight years, the members of this house have said absolutely nothing of not being involved in any vote on the wreck. is far better to have a non-partisan-- >> mr. speaker could i welcome the prime minister. in surprise that the two leaders of the opposition parties are insisting that their political placement should be put on this inquiry. nellis the time the parliament is not held in high esteem to have an independent inquiry.

although he is no friend at times in this government, but will the prime minister extend inquiry to take evidence from people in iraq, those who suffered under saddam's dictatorship and then you had to accept an onslaught from islamic extremists, from iranians, from al qaeda from ells-- sirri and which are to sell to resist. they are responsible for the debt the people in iraq and we should not let the law and the wealth that there evil is in any way attributable to the decisions of this and the other democratic governments of the world. >> i am grateful to my right honorable friend and the interest he has taken over these issues and many years. f to say to him sometimes in this house we should have the humility to accept their people outside this house it can contribute perhaps more than we can to an objective and impartial review of what is happening in iraq but in the run-up to the conflict and in the reconstruction that has taken place afterwards and i do think on the reflection of

people look at the list of names before them, then they will take the view that this is not only a very responsible group of people but a group of people who can conduct this review with great efficiency and with great care. i also agree that you must have the power to be able to listen to all voices that may have something to say to them but that will be a matter for the review itself. >> the existence of these weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent opponent of the invasion of iraq. may i put it to the prime minister that the disastrous effects of the war had been to make eye brand 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 recognize both in america ended europe and what the british people want is an explanation well before the general election 11 months from now of how it came about that mr. blair was able to persuade this parliament to vote in favor of the war on facts which he knew or not stand up to proper examination? >> mr. speaker i disagree with them but surely a point of an inquiry is to look it all of those issues and that is exactly what will happen. look also at whether there were areas 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 a subject of the report is what happened before so i hope he will agree that all of these issues are going to be looked at by this inquiry and looked at fully in the. >> mr. speaker, in the history

of this country, to political matters cry out for explanation more 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, whenever the concessions that 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 before the decision to go to war was made. neither of those matters, neither of them affect state security. neither of them require lawyers. why cannot they be ventilated and canvassed and public and without delay? >> my honorable friend has deeply held views on the issues that he has just raised. no doubt he also will be able to

give them to these views during the course of inquiry and perhaps he may wish to offer evidence to the inquiry if he has any. >> may i say to the prime minister that i profoundly regret the nature of the-- which is a disappointing response to what is by common consent regarded as a catastrophic foreign policy decision. on the form of inquiry he which he proposes can he tell us if the inquiry will have the power not to ask for witnesses but to compel witnesses to attend and to put them on the oath, so that their evidence may be verified against that background? let me ask him this question finally. how does the think the kind of inquiry he proposes will satisfy the millions of britons who marched against this war windy inquiry will meet in private, even when the national interest will not require it? >> mr. speaker i sometimes think

the liberal party, first of all this is an independent inquiry. secondly, the remez covers eight years, the buildup to war and reconstruction after it and as far as witnesses are concerned i cannot think of the inquiry being satisfied people they want to interview refused to be interviewed and i expect everybody to assess to give evidence will give evidence and i believe that is exactly what will happen, but for the liberal party or anybody in this house to jump to the conclusion that this inquiry is in some way not independent is completely wrong. it is an independent inquiry, independent of government, able to take all papers and interviews any witnesses. i know that the liberal party wanted it to be held in public but i think they know also about what happens when our public inquiries. it means lawyers, lawyers and lawyers where 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.

the the prime minister didn't answer the key question. which is, will evidence be given under oath? there is a history of this matter of obfuscation, deliberate deceit by some agencies and some individuals proven deceit now, nothing short of people giving evidence under oath will be sufficient to give this a great voracity and integrity and i ask him now, will he give us an assurance that evidence will be under of? if not, why not. >> the terms in which evidence will be given is a matter we will comment on and report later but i am absolutely sure, i am absolutely sure that everybody who is giving evidence-- i will be sure that everyone 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 of the scope of the inquiry have plainly been designed so that it reports the other side of a general election. but, given, if i could just have the prime minister's attention for a moment. i'm trying to ask him a question. given parliament and people were misled about the causes and reason for this war will the prime minister now 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 before the government has the british electorate? >> mr. speaker, the franks inquiry was a report that was done without having an interim report. the opposition asked or a franks style agree. the franks inquiry will, the frank style will the run-up to the conflict itself and the reconstruction and issues about reconstruction afterwards what think that is a pretty comprehensive remit that will

take time but is thought to be done in the best possible way and i think he looks at the the committee needs time to be able to do that they should have the time. this is a full report on which we want to learn lessons for the future and they think that is the issue, what lessons we can learn for military, our diplomacy, our security and of course for country's reputation abroad for the future. that is that the essence of what we are doing. >> thank you mr. speaker. this increase part of a process. this house is mechanisms of holding committees and any member of the foreign affairs committee will experience the limitations of select committees holding. and i find it extremely difficult to accept as a member of parliament why we are giving privileges to people outside this house under the guise of independence when we could have an inquiry of giving members of this house and select committees to give access to the kind of documents we are going to give

access to these people and hearings and public and in private with that kind of taxes income to a few? >> i understand she feels strongly about this but she must know there has been a foreign affairs inquiry by a select committee of this house. there has been an intelligence security inquiry by a committee of this house. there is also been the bowdler inquiry and there's also been the hutton inquiry a we now have an inquiry to look at all the events of the last eight years, the run-up to the war, the conflict itself and reconstruction after the conflict. i do believe that given this house has looked at this issue many times, it is right that the privy council inquiry get on with the job. they can interview witnesses, even members of this house or other people. they can take evidence from anybody they wish to do so and receive all papers from the government and there's nothing that will be kept secret from them. this is the model of the franks inquiry and that is what we are following.

>> can i add my condolences on the loss of lieutenant courses and private-- there iraqi conflict has led to the loss of personnel, 4,600 coalition personnel and ran 150,000 iraqis civilians. dearlove loans want to know the cause of this war and why their loved ones failed. if every session is held in private that may not be possible so will the prime minister think again about holding a secret inquiry is the wrong thing to do? >> mr. speaker, i disagree with him. the inquiry has got to take into account the interests of our national security. it is that to look at the issues that reflect on the capability and deployment of our troops in a way that it may not be best if made public and is also got to get people to talk frankly about what they believe are the lessons to be learned, surrounded by lawyers and everybody else in the public

arena is more difficult i think he would have to acknowledge libelee this inquiry will also be pharoah and it will be independent and i believe the results of this inquiry will be reported to this house. i think it is quite extraordinary that for weeks and four months people have been calling for a franks style inquiry and now they have a franks style thinkfree and they are trying to oppose it. >> franks was 25 years ago and the whole climate of opinion has changed since the secret franks in krate and i want the prime minister to understand that. i have hope for a new politics of openness that after last week. i am not prepared to accept a secret inquiry into iraq and i want the prime minister to think again. and can i ask i am this? why on the earth, after everything he has been saying did he consult with the official opposition and the liberal democrats and the other political parties on the terms of reference, on the membership,

how long it will take. why didn't he take it upon himself again to tell the house what was in its best interest? >> >> the cabinet secretary did discuss with the official opposition and the liberal party issues relating 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 there are issues of national security other issues related to our military. there serving officers who wish to give evidence. their people working in other arenas at the moment. i don't think anybody who looked at the cindy till would say that the evidence that all these people who should give to the inquiry should be given in public. i think there would respect the fact there's a degree of confidentiality that is necessary and also understand a reflection that people are going to be frank with the great about the lessons to be learned then they will want to be able to give their evidence in private look at the alternative. the alternative would mean we would have a long inquiry where

the body would be represented by a lawyer rather than by themselves and i think that is not the way we are going to learn the best lessons from this conflict. >> thank you mr. speaker. the events of the iranians elections will demonstrate just how unstable this region is likely to become. will the prime minister assure the house that the planted resources exist from the british military reengagement, should the iraqi government ask for it? and it is not going to be left up just to the americans? >> you will know that we have signed ag the agreement with the iraqi government about what support we can give them in training, what they will support we can give them, what help we can give them to the short-term, medium-term and long-term and obviously there are significant troops in close cooperation between our countries and the arrangements we have with the government will be similar to

the bilateral relationships that are very strong in other parts of the region. >> i fully understand it would be inappropriate for my right honorable friend to go into detail and i would not wishing to do anything that would compromise the safety of the hostages. kenny give me assurances this either withdraw our-- will be involved in making every effort to secure the release of the five hostages and the four bodyguards? >> i understand the concerns my honorable friend has expressed in she has been very vigilant in asking about the welfare of the five hostages. this is something i have talked about the prime minister maliki on a number of different occasions. i have preston to take an interest in this matter directly and he has, so we are determined to secure the safe release of the hostages. it is permanently on our desk is an issue that has got to be dealt with in something that for the safety of these five people were doing everything in our power to make sure they can come

home. >> mer remind the prime minister he is yet to into the question on oath. in his presentation of the operation charts, one could be forgiven for believing it's something to do with the preparation and planning of that operation. when the truth of the matter is it took place in a british responsibility without notice to less and it was the most graphic demonstration that our troops have been invited to take a role, way in advance of the political influence of their leaders and when advances of the resources that the nation was willing or able to devote to support them in a world they were asked to undertake. the number of fatalities in afghanistan is sadly looks as though it will overtake the number of fatalities in iraq. there are important lessons for what is happening in afghanistan. will the committee have the opportunity to report emerging conclusions on issues such as that in advance of their final report? >> mr. speaker i know that he is an expert on many of these

matters and talks a great deal about them, but i do think he should take care not to talk down the contribution of our military forces. in that episode, in that episode in basra, in that episode in basra where he says the british military or not consulted and involved, i don't think he is telling the full truth about what happened in that exercise. i think we need, i think we need to have all the facts out there and of course that is with the inquiry will to. >> mr. speaker, i very much welcome the announcement of an inquiry today but could i ask wide-mike my honorable friend to read is that in some respects the advice he has been given by the cabinet secretary and i can understand why the device was given. into respects in particular. one because the objective is surely not just to learn lessons. in surely tell us debose the truth of what happened. that must be the central purpose of the inquiry and could i just

say secondly that the committee that i chair has been taking an interest in the forum that an inquiry into iraq should take. we held a private seminar, a very distinguished people's weakener bat to issue a report and i have to say what those people felt was that a franks inquiry was appropriates 25 years ago but a private privy council requirement would not be thought appropriate now and the worst thing of all, the worst thing of all surely would be to replicate all the arguments we have had about iraq, with similar arguments about the form an inquiry should take so could i just ask him as, i welcome his statement that could be regarded as the beginning of a short process of consultation so he can carry the whole house with him? >> i have read the letter he is written to me and i appreciate what he has said about the use of him and other people on this but his point is entered by the fact that the inquiry because

there eight years. it goes from 2001 to 2009. what you want to be sure of is that all the issues relating to iraq would be discussed. we have done an inquiry like franks only in the run-up to the war. we could have an inquiry about reconstruction. all of the issues but we of inquiry that covers all of these issues, as a result of the decision that we have made. on some of the points is committee or he wanted to make to me was to be sure that the range of the acree was sufficiently wide so all these issues can be dealt with and that is the case. >> thank you mr. speaker. in the answer the prime minister gave to my right honorable friend he suggested that having this inquiry in secret would mean that he or we would get the answers that we were quiring. doesn't the understand it is the british people who require these answers and what they are requiring is the truth of what led up to this war and can i ask then he will make sure that any

of the taped conversations between the then prime minister, tony blair, and the president of the united states if they are available are made available to this inquiry. whti also make sure that all of the recorded telephone calls between the prime minister and president bush, which i understand are recorded, are made available over that period of time and can i ask him again, don't think about what he wants to hear. who do consider what the british people want to hear and what they don't want to hear is this inquiry is being held in secret. the lincoln except that part of the inquiry for security reasons would necessarily have to cover that fact but most of it-- >> prime minister. >> mr. speaker, he asked that the inquiry deal with issues affecting, the issues surrounding the run-up to the conflict. that is exactly what the inquiry is going to do. is going to start in 2001. you once to be sure that will look at the issues surrounding the decision that was made to go

into conflict. that is with the inquiry will do. it will look good all of the issues. the this agreement between him and us is whether we have a franks style aggree which both the main buyers of-- partisan vas for or whether they fully public inquiry. i have given him the reasons why a fully public inquiry does not seem to be appropriate when dealing with issues of national security and issues affecting the military. >> mr. speaker, the most important statement he makes when coming year to send the troops into iraq. i felt-- i have never once as a question which would embarrass our troops are the government during that period. i have always waited on the knowledge that there will be a public inquiry in the end and i am extremely disappointed in talking about inquiry that will be limited because of the end of the day what i have always said to my constituents is we will look at the inquiry for two reasons. was we must learn the lessons

were mistakes made. two, the truth must come out and indeed the general public needs know the truth. it is far more important for people to understand that when they give advice to prime ministers, when the advice is given there will be a day of reckoning and the-- to deal with that. >> mr. speaker i am grateful to him. he has always stood by the armed forces of this country when they been in conflict and i appreciable strong views about the issue. ides issac to say to him while the inquiry is done in private the report will be fully public to people to debate in this house. people will be able to see for themselves what conclusions are drawn by this inquiry ouellette the same time as i have said to the house earlier i guess the agree that they will publish information other than all the information other than the most sensitive military security information. therefore the house will have a chance to debate a fully comprehensive report that covers eight years and covers all

issues in the run-up to and the aftermath of this conflict.

>> now lech efforts to prevent polio around the world and the lessons that can be applied toward developing other vaccines. the world health organization this event. it is 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. thank you for the importation into the global health council. thank you very much you and your company rabin made his opportunity available to me. i am especially grateful you did not ask me to talk about polio eradication and how we were going to get it finished.

he levesque me to look backwards and talk about things we have learned, so i first want to tell you what i am not going to talk about over the next few minutes. i am not going to talk about the horizontal, vertical debate about polio eradication, vertical programs in general and i am not going to talk about whether they are good or bad and morris talked about the politics of polio but i'm not going to talk about that. we are in washington and i think you get enough of that. what i'm going to focus on come i'm going to look back over the 15 years as suggested by the title by the global health council to look at what have we learned from this global effort to eradicate polio. that might be in some applicable to what we are trying to do, all of us in improving global health in general and improving in particular the uptick of other vaccines. now, before i get into the lessons of want to make sure we are on the same paid so want to talk a little bit about why we are trying to eradicate polio and then what we are doing and

put that in context. to be sure we are on the same page, really there are three reasons we are doing this and this picture for me captures the key one because this is an absolutely devastating disease that affects the poorest most marginalized communities in the world. over three anderton 50,000 children are being paralyzed by this disease every single day, every single year when the initiative was launched just 20 years ago. and it is a disease widespread not only in a show when we started the irrevocation initiative, but also in africa of course. by the time we got started, thanks to the work of the hero of polio, the disease that large had been eradicated from the americas. so, devastating disease but also one which in contrast to hiv, tv, malaria and other diseases we have the to-- tool to eliminate forever.