[applause] [applause]

>> and we are going to go live now to the british parliament where prime minister gordon brown is making a statement about an inquiry into the iraq war. he has just turned to speak. live coverage here on c-span. >> their sacrifice reminds us of the dangers armed forces confront every day and why we must continue to give them our support. mr. speaker, our troops first went into iraq in march of 2003,

and now that are coming home. in total, 120,000 men and women served in iraq and the last six years. it is fitting i should now come to the house to talk of their achievements during difficult times, to chart a new relationship with a building with iraq and to set up plans for an inquiry into the conflict. as always, mr. speaker, we can be supremely proud of the with the armed forces carried out their mission. their valor in the heat of combat recognized in many citations and awards -- and the most of the code imaginable conditions and ever-present risk of attack. today we continue to mourn and remember the 179 men and women who gave their lives in iraq and the service of our country. in my statement to the house last december i set out the remaining tasks in southern iraq for our mission. first, that we want to entrench improvements in security by putting iraqis in charge of their own defenses.

second, to support iraq's emerging democracy, particularly through provincial elections. third, to promote the reconstruction to promote economic growth and basic services such as power and water to give the iraqi people what happened budget matters most in their livelihood, a full stake in the economic future. i can report, mr. speaker, the three objectives are -- have been achieved and do that efforts and our allies and six difficult years a young democracy has replaced at a vicious 30-year-old dictatorship. in recent months we completed the training of 9000 troops in the 14th division of the iraqi army who are now fully in crunch -- a charge of boz rep. with our help and help of the americans -- the operation last year. since then violence and crime in that region has continued to fall while levels of violence across iraq as a whole are at their lowest since 2003. provincial elections were also

held peacefully on the 31st of january with 7 million iraqis turning out for 440 different political groupings. they iran -- they ran the elections themselves. preparations are now under way for national elections on january 31, 2010. since 2003 the united kingdom has also spent over 500 million pounds for humanitarian assistance, infrastructure and economic growth. support to the health sector included 189 projects in bosnia, including refurbishment of the general hospital and the building of a children's hospital. as a whole international community magic 5000 schools as well as constructing new schools and classrooms in existing schools and despite high unemployment and the skill of the global recession and economic growth in iraq this year is predicted to be nearly 7%. signet and challenges remain, including that of finding a sustainable solution to the sharing of oil reserves.

but iraq's future is now in the hands of its own people and politicians and we must pay tribute to the endurance of the iraqi people and pledge to them our continuing support. but it will be support very different from the kind we provided for the last six years. as the house knows, our military mission ended with the last combat patrol on basra on april 30. as of today there are fewer than 500 british troops in iraq with more returning each week. mr. speaker, the day of the last combat patrol in april, i welcome the prime minister al- maliki and most of his cabinet to london. we signed a declaration of partnership, french, and cooperation, defining a new relationship of our countries. at the request of the iraqi government and small number of british naval personnel, no more than 100, will remain for long term training of the iraqi army. will naval ships will continue to protect the oil platform. and we will continue to offer training to the iraqi army as part of a wider nato mission.

we will also offer training operations elsewhere in the u.k. of iraqi officers of high potential. but at the core of our new relationship will be diplomatic trading and cultural links. supporting british and other foreign investors who want to play a role in the reconstruction of southern iraq. i discussed with promised al- maliki -- british companies to provide expertise to the oil industry. earlier this year mesopotamia patrolling countries signed a joint venture with $400 million, shell is working with the seven oil company to bring to market some of us cubic feet of gas, british companies are now competing for further contract and roles was an parkinsons' discussing with the ministry of electricity proposals for a new power generation infrastructure where an additional $200 million. british funding will support lending to thousands of businesses, a youth employment program to give training and work to young in basra could be

rolled out as a result of its success brought the whole of iraq, and we are supporting the transport ministry for the resumption of civilian flights. working with a major education program. iraq has already identified the first 250 students, an early initiative and the contribution for the plan for 10,000 overseas scholarships for iraqi students. mr. speaker, issues and the region still confront us. iran is an independent nation that deserves our respect and the iranian people are proud people who deserve democracy. that is why the regime must address the serious questions that have been asked about the conduct of the iranian elections. the way the regime responds to legitimate protest will have implications for iran possible relationships with the rest of the world in the future. i think the house will also want to know the speech of prime minister netanyahu where for the first time he endorsed a two- state solution.

his speech was an important step forward, but there remains a long road ahead. i am speaking to him later today to press the importance of freezing settlements. so, mr. speaker, with the last british combat troops about to return from iraq, not the right time to ensure with the proper process in place to learn the lessons of this conflict and often controversial events of the last six years. i today announcing the establishment of an independent counselor committee of inquiry. it will consider summer 2001, before military operations began in march 2003, and subsequent involvement in iraq right until the end of july of this year. the inquiry its essentials so that by learning lessons, it will strengthen the hell -- health of our democracy, the plaza, and military. it will be fully independent of government. the scope of the inquiry is unprecedented. it covers an eight-year period,

including the run-up to the conflict and the full period of conflict and reconstruction. the committee of inquiry will have access to the fullest range of information, including secret information. another word, the investigation and range across all documents and material so that inquiry can ask for any british document to come before it and any british citizen to appear. no british document or witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry. i have asked the members that the final report will be able to disclose all but the most sensitive information. that is, all information except that it's essential to national security. the inquiry will receive the full cooperation of the government, with access to all government papers and the ability to call up any witnesses that it objected to learn the lessons from the events surrounding the conflict. it is on this basis that i accepted the cabinet secretaries and vice that the franks and greeted us president. taking into account national security considerations as that

inquiry did, for example, what might damage or reduced capability in the future, evidence will be held in private. also evidence given by serving or former ministers, military officers and officials from what i believe be as full and candid as possible. the committee will publish its findings in as full as warm as possible and they will then be debated and house of commons and lords. it is in the debate as well as report itself that we can draw fully from the lessons learned in iraq. so, while the format is the same as the franc's inquiry, we of gone further in the scope. no one currie has looked at such a long period, no inquiry lookingt into much inquiryh -- while franks looked only to the run-up of the falklands conflict, this will look at the run-up, the conflict itself and the reconstruction so we can learn lessons in each and every area. the inquiry will take into account evidence of minutes of previous inquiries. i am asking members of the

committee to explain the scope, with, and breadth to opposition leaders and chairs of the relevant parliament committees. and ordered that the committee is objective and non-partisan as possible, members will exist entirely of non-partisan figures, known to be experts in their field. there will be no representatives of political parties from ever -- any side. i can announce the committee of inquiry will be chaired by sir john -- and include baroness -- sir laurence freedman and sir martin goldberg. all will be privy councilors. the committee will start work as soon as possible at the end of july. given the complexity of issues it will address, i am advised it will take a year. as a made clear -- as they made clear, the primary objective of the committee will be to identify lessons learned. the committee will not set out to apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability.

finally, mr. speaker, i am sure the full house will join with me paying tribute to the coverage and dedication of every one of our armed forces and also our civilian personnel who have served our country to visit with such distinction in iraq over six years and will continue to do so in afghanistan among peacekeeping missions around the world. mr. speaker, at its peak, the force of 36,000 served tours of duty. in total, as i have said, 120,000 men and women served over the period of the entire conflict. 107 in nine britons died, to hunt and 22 were seriously or very seriously injured. and we remember them all today. mr. speaker, i said in my statement last december that the memorial wall and basra will be brought home -- it will form part of a new wall built in the national arboretum in staffordshire and just as it is right we should pay tribute to

the memory of those fallen and to the wounded, so it is rights to give thanks for the safe return of our forces to show our gratitude to all who served and for us as a nation to celebrate the enduring achievement of all of our armed forces. so i can also tell the house that an autumn of this year, a service of thanksgiving in commemoration will be held at was in -- westminster abbey. we support our forces today -- through their work, and the american coalition comrades and iraqi security forces and supported by the courage and vision those in iraq led by prime minister a leaky, iraq is emerging from the shadow of 30 years of brutal dictatorship and then conflict. today promised al-maliki and his government could work together for a peaceful and prosperous future. that they can do so is the ultimate tribute to all who served in iraq, to the skills, commitment, and sheer professionalism, to their great an enduring courage and in measurable contribution to

reconstruction and to peace. i commend this statement to the house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i join the promised and paying tribute to lt. tributemervis -- end -- killed and afghanistan. in the course of the iraq conflict, 179 but as servicemen and women lost their lives. they came from all three services -- army, navy, and air force and one mod civilian. of course, the iraq conflict caused great division in our politics and parliament and our country. but things we can all unite over of the professionalism and bravery of our armed forces, the services they gave to our country and the debt we owe to all of those who lost their lives. can i start with some of the things we agree about the statement? yes, we agree with the need of a strong relationship with democratic iraq and britain, absolutely agree for its vaunted-state solution between israel and palestine and welcome

what prime mr. netanyahu said, yes, we need answers about the conduct of those iranian elections. but want to focus light weapons on the inquiry announced by the prime minister. we welcome the inquiry -- indeed, we have been calling for now for many, many months. but i have to say i'm far from convinced the promise there has got it right. the whole point of having an inquiry is it got to be able to make clear recommendations to go wherever the evidence needs, to establish the full truth and to make sure the right lessons are learned. it has got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. isn't there a danger that what the prime tester has announced today will not achieve those objections? the membership looks quite limited, the terms of reference in restricted and inquiry is not specifically tasked to make recommendations and none of it will be held in public. so, will the prime minister answer questions about the following fou arear? timing, membership, covered and content and the openness?

first, timing, this inquiry should have started earlier. can anyone argue an inquiry starting, said, six months ago would undermine british troops? indeed, the argument you cannot have an inquiry while troops are in iraq have been blown away by the promise to sing some troops will indeed be staying there even as the inquiry gets under way. the terms of how long it takes, but frnaks inquiry report in just six months but this one is due to take, surprise surprise, until july or august of 2010. by delaying the start of this inquiry and by prolonging the publication until after the next election, everyone would conclude this inquiry has been fixed to make sure the government avoids having to face up to any inconvenience -- at the very least, will the prime as their look of the possibility of an interim report early next year? second, the people conducting the inquiry -- what is required is a mixture of diplomatic,

military, and political experience. now, we welcomed the diplomatic experience. there has to be a question mark over the military experience? no former chiefs of staff with -- or people with that expertise. also, is it necessary, as the franks inquiry, to have senior politicians to look at the political judgment? the inquiry needs to be, and needs to be seen to be truly independent and not an establishment stitch. would you look at widening the membership in a way we have suggested? third, the coverage and the content. yes, it is welcome that it will come as a whole period in the run-up to the war as well as the conduct. but isn't wrong to try to confine it to an arbitrary period of time? should it be free to pursue any points it judges to be relevant? looking specifically at issue of terms of reference, isn't it extraordinary that the prime minister says it should try to

avoid apportioning blame. should the inquiry have the ability to apportion blame if mistakes were made? 22 know who made them and why they were made. specifically on encourage, the prime minister was clear it would have access to all the british documents and all british witnesses. does this mean the inquiry may not have access to documents from that u.s. aid or the provisional authority for the iraqi government even if they are kept in the british archive? and and for a specific question. will the inquiry be free to invite foreign witnesses to give evidence, written and oral? and on the issue of the scope of the inquiry, will you confirm it will cover relations with the u.s., use of intelligence of the mission, the function of the machinery of government, post- conflict planning and how the armed forces -- armed forces were together?

turning to transparency, given that this inquiry is not just of interest to politicians but to the public and the families of servicemen and service women who gave large lives, should be some public sessions? isn't that what many would want, i expect, and part of the building of public confidence that is not absolutely necessary? finally, are the limitations of this inquiry reflected in the way that house of commons is being treated by the government over this issue? it for the franks and grain -- before the franks inquiry, there was a debate on the terms of reference and the house of commons. this time -- the prime minister laughs -- this time it is just a statement in the debate, yet last ones that the prime minister promised us a new era of promised accountability and democratic renewal. what happened to that? mr. speaker, a proper inquiry must include a range of members, including senior politicians. it needs to have the freedom to

range widely and speak frankly and the terms of reference must be debated properly in a democracy like ours. so, when he stands up, would the prime tester put those failings right? >> mr. speaker, first of all, i thank you for the comments he made about the soldiers who died in afghanistan and the contribution they make. i'm glad he also agrees with what i said about iran and the behavior of the iranian regime and the need for them to stop any violence that has been conducted against people protecting -- protesting against the election in a peaceful way. i also agree about the support he needs to get and i want to give to our troops and take into account at all times, particularly when looking at this inquiry, the wishes and abuse and also the sensitivities of all the families of people who died and were injured fighting in iraq. i have to say to him, when i listened to what he said, i think almost all of the points he raised are dealt with in the

scope and breadthth and depth of the inquiry. i think if i may say so, -- spending a great deal of time calling for an franks-style inquiry. there was repeated reference to the saddle foreign secretary and later of opposition is what they wanted was a franks-style inquiry, which is what we got. regarding the restrictive nature -- i cannot, mr. speaker, think of an inquiry that has gotten more comprehensive, wider, and broader than what i just announced. far from it being restricted, it covers eight years, from 2001 through 2009. far from being restrictive, it is -- have access to any documents available, including foreign documents in british archives and as far as we are concerned taken into be any witnesses, british, or any it wants to invite if necessary

from abroad. so i don't think there is any fundamental disagreement between us on the nature of the inquiry, its scope, and the fact it is very comprehensive indeed. i have to remind him about the timing, that the franks inquiry looked at events and only the run-up to the falklands war. incidently, mr. speaker, it was announced in a written answer to the house of commons and not in a statement. -- oral statement. let me say, as far as the of franks inquiry is concerned, it dealt with the run-up to of what once were. what this deals with is the run- up, the conflict itself and all issues of reconstruction after the conflict. i cannot think of any set of events that can be excluded that art of and portraits to iraq and the nation -- nature of the relationships. it is hardly surprising that when we are dealing with the eight-year period, and not just what the run-up but the conflict

itself and the aftermath, that the inquiry will take time to interview witnesses, take time to take evidence, and its report, of course, will be detailed. now, i have said -- i repeat this -- i said the report should be as comprehensive as is possible given the issues of national security that are involved. in other words, all but the most sensitive of information should be something that is reported to the house of commons. and the lessons that we are going to learn from the iraq events will be learned not just from the investigation but the debates that will take place in this house when we receive the full report from this inquiry. as for the membership -- i think there is a difference between now and the issues dealt with by the franks inquiry. for eight years we have had politicians commenting on iraq one way or another in this house and elsewhere. and it seems to me that we would be better in the circumstances to draw on the professional and

expert advice of people who had not been involved in the process of commenting on this over these last few years. and that is why we have, what i believe, a committee of people who can be regarded as both knowledgeable and expert in their field. i would really defied the opposition to criticize the individuals were named in this inquiry as people who are not capable of carrying out what i believe is an important piece of work for which they are suited and in which they will do a good job. i hope that people will recognize that they are respected in their own fields and have a great deal of offer in this inquiry. mr. speaker, the defense in iraq are controversial, they have led to heated debate in this house, that have led to heated debate across our country, but it is possible for us to work together to learn the lessons of this inquiry, and i do hope that this inquiry will not become the subject of partisan infighting. i hope that this inquiry -- i

hope that this inquiry would be done by a very respectable group of people whom i think have a great reputations throughout our country, will get the support of the the many people in this house as possible. then i would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and bill is to the family and friends p and attendaul mervis and private maclaren lost their lives and afghanistan this last week and join the prime in a standing tribute to our brave servicemen and women who serve our country so courageously in iraq over the last six years. in particular, to the 179 who lost their lives. they and their families are in our thoughts today. i passionately believe that we were wrong to read -- invade iraq, but i am second to none and my admiration for the bravery and dedication of our servicemen and women. everyone knows that the invasion of iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations.

the single most controversial decision taken by government since -- so, mr. speaker, i am staggered that the prime minister today is seeking to come down to -- come down that error, fatal for so many sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it. liberal bureaucrats call for an inquiry to but -- of the buildup. i suppose we commit grateful that finally the prime minister has exceeded to that demand. but he has taken a step in the right direction but miss the fundamental point. a secret inquiry conducted by a grandees handpicked by the prime minister is not what britain is. 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 a mistake made in their name? i have met not families of the

soldiers who lost their lives in iraq and just an hour ago they asked me to speak in their name and tell him that nothing short of a fully public inquiry held in open would satisfy them. would the promised not at least listen to what those grieving families need? he said the inquiry has to be held in private to protect national security. it looks 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 -- before the next general election? it is possible to have been limited number of centreville magic sensitive sessions on camera by -- and leaving the best principle that the vast bulk of the inquiry, not just a few public sessions, should be open to all. i'm grateful he has listened to my representations and expanded the inquiry to cover the full

origins of no war and give full access to the documents and files that it will need. but i am disappointed he made such a feeble attempt to secure consensus on a panel that will conduct the inquiry. that experience successfully established inquiries like what is held in netherlands shows consensus can only be secured of the government conducts painstaking consultation over a prolonged period of time. why did the prime minister not even to attempt that sort of constructive discussion with other parties? the government, mr. speaker, must not be allowed to close the book on this war as it opened it, 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 watched our brave servicemen and women putting their lives on the line

for a war that did not support -- they did not support and could not understand. to rebuild public trust, the inquiry must be held in public. will the prime minister even now reconsider? will he make the inquiry in healing process for the nation or will be turned his back on the legitimate demands of the british people once again? >> as a result of what happened in iraq -- and nothing to it away from our concern about the needs of these families and our respect for them. i do want to answer specifically, however, about the inquiry itself. the inquiry is to learn the lessons of what has happened. the inquiry will cover the run- up to the war, the conflict itself, and reconstruction after the conflict. i can think of no remit that can be broader than that, to cover