UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. I am very pleased to contribute to the debate, and I join others in commending the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on her passionate and deeply personal speech.

I still vividly remember when I first discovered what race discrimination was. At the age of eight or nine, I was watching the TV in my granny’s house and I realised that there was a lot of stuff in the news about something called anti-apartheid protests, which at the time I could not even pronounce. I asked my mum what it meant, and she explained that it was about a system in which black children and white children were not allowed to go to the same school or play against or with each other in football matches, a system in which black people and white people were not allowed to go on the same bus or to the same shops. Basically, they were supposed to live their entire lives without ever interacting with each other, except, of course, where black people were working as domestic servants, or near-slaves, for white people. Even as a wee boy—I was not an angel; I was still telling the kind of jokes in the playground that we now try to persuade children not to tell—I could not imagine anyone wanting to live in a society like that. Where I grew up there was not a big ethnic minority population, but I could not imagine wanting to see people divided by barbed wire fences because of the colour of their skin, and almost 50 years later I still cannot understand that. I cannot imagine why anyone would choose that as a way to run a society.

Sometimes it is not even anything as much as the colour of someone’s skin. Another clear memory I have, again about South Africa, is that as a teenager I was watching a TV documentary about a wee girl whose parents were white Afrikaners. She was born with white skin, but somehow manged to get facial features that meant she was classed as a negro under the South African system. Her parents refused to let her mix with the blacks, but other white parents did not want their children mixing with her because they thought that she was a negro, so the poor wee soul went to about five different schools as a result of the outcomes of court cases and education board appeals. I could not understand why the parents did not see that as an indictment of the apartheid system under which they lived. The case even led to a change in the race laws in South Africa, not to let black children and white children play together in the playground—that would never have happened—but to say that if two parents were certified white Afrikaner, their children could not be classified as anything else. That completely destroys any shred of credibility that the argument that people are somehow born to be superior or inferior ever had. It is a bit like Crufts having to pass a law saying that it is not permitted to breed two pedigree springer spaniels and call the offspring an Alsatian or a poodle. So even as almost a young man, I was aware that people were trying to put some kind of scientific justification on racism, and I could also see that anything approaching common sense said that that just did not add up.

Something else I saw in that documentary helped me to understand not where racism comes from but how it can be perpetuated. A teacher of a class of white six-year-olds was explaining why the blacks were inferior, talking about how the “funny” shape of their eyes, ears, mouths and noses, and the unclean colour of their skin, meant that they had clearly been made to be inferior. Today, that would, I hope, horrify even white South Africans, but at that time it was how one of the wealthiest and supposedly most developed countries was bringing up its children. It is not surprising that it is taking a long time for those children to realise the error of their ways.

Of course, we do not do that these days, we do not bring up our children to support racial prejudices—except that we do. Perhaps we do not do it in the same way, by getting teachers to teach the creed of racism to our children, but we do it through what we print on the front pages of our newspapers. If we look back through the past year or two of front-page headlines in some newspapers, the word “migrant” appears more than almost any other word, and never in any context other than to create fear and hatred and continue to paint the myth that if someone is an immigrant they are somehow a danger, rather than a benefit, to society. I have even heard Members of the House of Commons speaking in debates in the Chamber in such a way that makes an explicit assumption that we have to vet every single Syrian refugee because the fact that they come from a predominantly Muslim country somehow makes them more likely to be a danger to us than the criminals we are quite capable of growing among the white working-class and middle-class populations around the UK’s towns and cities.

It is that kind of assumption that has been identified as the main theme of this UN international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. The UN talks about racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration, and as someone said earlier, there are one or two people who could do with heeding those words very carefully indeed. I do not think it is a mistake to link racial profiling with incitement to hatred, because I cannot see any purpose behind such profiling other than racial discrimination, and I cannot see any way that racial discrimination can ever avoid going towards incitement of hatred, racial violence and even worse.

Somebody has already mentioned the New York declaration for refugees and migrants. It is worth reminding ourselves of what that says:

“We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants, and the stereotypes often applied to them...Demonizing refugees or migrants offends profoundly against the values of dignity and equality for every human being, to which we have committed ourselves.”

Those are very fine words. Sadly, too many of the Governments whose heads signed up to those words show something different by their actions. Imagine if every child in America was asked to recite those words as well as singing the “Star-Spangled Banner” at the start of the school day. Imagine if every politician in these islands or elsewhere had to recite those words as part of their oath of office. Imagine that as well as—some people would say instead of—a brief period of communal prayer in the Christian tradition in this Chamber, we all stood on camera and recited those or similar words each and every day before we set about our deliberations. That would at least send a message that what we are here for is to promote the equality of human beings and not to promote inequality and discrimination. Why can we not do something like that?

The horrific statistics that the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced in its report last year have been mentioned. Although the statistics are based on research in England and Wales, it would be foolish and complacent to suggest we would find anything significantly different in most parts of Scotland or in most parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. For all the fine words, and for all the length of time that we have been claiming to be an equal society, we are not.

I want to finish with some personal comments from Baroness McGregor-Smith in the foreword to the document that was referred to earlier. She says:

“Speaking on behalf of so many from a minority background, I can simply say that all we ever wanted was to be seen as an individual, just like anyone else.”

There is no reason on earth why that simple dream should ever be beyond the reach of any human being on God’s earth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on making me cry twice in a week. Thanks very much for that. The first time was last week at the beautiful event held at the Speaker’s House to mark this day. Today, it was understandable that there were few dry eyes in here.

On 21 March 1960 an 82-year-old stonemason in Pretoria, South Africa, wrote a poem in Scottish Gaelic with a Swahili refrain condemning the bloody massacre in Sharpeville of 69 black South Africans, many of them shot in the back. Originally from the Isle of Mull, Duncan Livingstone was a Boer war veteran who had worked and lived in Glasgow before emigrating to South Africa and spending the rest of his life there. What was clear to that Hebridean Glaswegian, whose work is still visible in the city today, was clear to right-thinking people across the world, and in 1966 the UN declared 21 March the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

While we seldom see such blatant and violent racism on such a scale in developed countries, at least today, pernicious racial discrimination remains in most if not all societies. Just because most of us will never experience it and most of us will rarely witness it, that does not mean it does not happen. Some of it is in a blatant form. I did not want to intervene on the hon. Member for Brent Central, because the point she was making about race hate crimes was too important, but I will say that the increase in Scotland was very much less. I say that not to say “Scotland good, England and Wales bad”; I say it because I think it has an awful lot to do with the difference in political rhetoric from each Government. It does make a difference.

We have not eliminated racism in Scotland. Far from it. Let me fast-forward to Glasgow, 50 years on from when Duncan Livingstone wrote that Gaelic-Swahili poem. About eight years ago I accompanied a Sudanese friend to the housing office, because I could not understand why, as a homeless person, he had not been offered accommodation—anything at all—one year on from becoming homeless, which happened as a result of his refugee status being granted. The housing office informed me that he was not classed as homeless because he was staying with a friend. “But he’s sleeping on a yoga mat on the living room floor, and has been for a year,” I said. What did they say in response? They told me that that did not necessarily constitute homelessness—actually it does—because “lots of Africans are used to sleeping on the ground. They like it.” That is blatant. He was denied his legal rights. It was only eight years ago. That is racial discrimination.

I think the really dangerous racism, other than institutionalised racism, is that which is under the radar. It is so subtle that unless you are the recipient, you probably would not pick up on it. It is not always intentional—most people do not want to be racist—but I have heard people speak about black friends of mine not in critical terms, but saying how they are quite aggressive and forceful, when they are nothing of the sort—they are simply expressing themselves. We all need to be honest with ourselves about it, because confronting our own thinking is the best way to change it. I am not excluding myself from that. My partner is black and I have had people telling me that therefore I must not be capable of racism; but that is such a dangerous way to think. I am subjected to media images and propaganda the same as anyone else. None of us is immune to thinking or acting in a racially discriminatory fashion, but we are all capable of challenging our own thoughts and monitoring our actions, and morally obliged to do so.

When I say none of us is immune, I primarily mean none of us who are white. I sometimes read comments from white people who say “But black people are just as racist”. I keep saying we need to learn and educate ourselves, and I am going to share something about my education around 20 years ago when I would hear people say that. I did not really agree with the statement, but I was not sure why. It did not sound right to me, but I would have agreed at the very least that there was racism from some black people towards white people. Then a good friend—a Mancunian Pakistani with a bit of Glaswegian thrown in—explained that while there might be prejudice from a black person to a white person, as that black person probably is not as propped up by the levers of power, as embedded in the UK’s institutions, as immersed in the establishment of the UK, it cannot be called racism. It is simply an opinion that ordinarily has little impact on the white person’s life. Racism—I am not trying to define it here—is about the desire and ability to exercise power over someone because of the colour of their skin and the colour of one’s own skin. The world is still weighted in favour of white people. The UK is still weighted in favour of white people.

That brings me to the biggest problem as I see it, which is institutionalised racism. Who runs the judiciary? White people. Who runs the Government? Primarily white people. The civil service, Churches and media? White people. As for some sections of the media and the responsibility they have, we can talk about the irresponsible way they behave—most Scots will remember when every drunk person in a TV drama series or a film had to be Scottish. We hated that, unless it was “Rab C. Nesbitt”, of course, but at least we had positive role models too. Black children growing up rarely had positive black role models. It was not that they did not exist, just that they never got to see them. Just as importantly, neither did we. Instead, when black people were on TV it was generally a negative portrayal. My partner Graham—he is Jamaican, and his mother is from Grenada—told me that when Trevor McDonald came on the news, it was an event. There he was, a black man being listened to and taken seriously. Now, he says, it does not even register with him when a black person is on TV and being taken seriously. He did add, however, that it is absolutely right that the next step has to be for them to get parity in their industry.

I was going to talk about increasing income disparity between people of different ethnicities as they become more qualified, but the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) covered that for me, so I shall take the time instead to respond to a comment from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about letters he gets telling him that child refugees should be brought here; he said none of the letters offers to give them a bed. Who would write to their MP to go through that process? That is not what people do. No one writes to me offering to give a bed. It does not mean that those people are not out there. As we have heard, local authorities and Governments across these islands have said that they have places available, and people available to take children in.

[Peter Grant]

I cannot give any personal constituency experience, but I have good friends in a neighbouring constituency who wanted to offer their entire house to Syrian refugees. At that point the reason they could not was that the Home Office was not planning to let in enough Syrian refugees for Fife’s quota to fill one big house in North East Fife. That may be why people have not offered to provide houses—because there simply were not enough refugees being allowed in to need the houses in the first place.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I sometimes do not know whether to laugh or cry in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The Government aim to secure the best possible outcome for UK science and research as we leave the European Union. The EU and the UK have publicly emphasised the importance of continuing to work together to produce high-quality research, so both at home and abroad we will remain at the forefront of science and research.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In paragraph 10.14 of their White Paper, the Government tell us that they

“would welcome agreement…with our European partners”

on science and technology issues, but they give no indication of how that agreement will be achieved—no timetable, no detail and absolutely no guarantees. Will the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place, rather than simply telling us that the Government have had discussions?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leads on science, but this will be an essential part of the negotiations we conduct with the European Union after we have triggered article 50.

US Immigration Policy

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I think the conclusion that anybody looking at the President’s electoral rhetoric and what he is in fact doing will draw is that his bark is considerably worse than his bite. I think we have every opportunity to do a very good deal with him on all sorts of things, not least free trade.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What assessment have the UK Government made of the risk to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred a few minutes ago, namely that the Islamophobia being propagated in America may make it easier for Daesh to recruit terrorists to operate in the United Kingdom?

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I begin by saying:

“I am heartbroken that today President Trump is closing the door on children, mothers and fathers fleeing violence and war. I am heartbroken that America is turning its back on a proud history of welcoming refugees and immigrants—the people who helped build your country, ready to work hard in exchange for a fair chance at a new life.”

Those are not my words, but the words of a Nobel prize winner. Her name is Malala. She probably knows more than anyone here the difference between true Islam and the poisonous perversion that we see in the hatred of Daesh and others. It is heartbreaking beyond words that the leader of what was once the free world does not know the difference between them.

Make no mistake, however much his supporters and apologists may want to dress it up, Donald Trump has explicitly made the connection between being a Muslim and being much more likely than anybody else to be a danger to fellow human beings. That is offensive not only to Muslims; as a Christian, I find it an offensive, repugnant way of running a country. I have heard people praise Mr Trump for his Christianity. I am sorry, but I was brought up to see the best in everybody, and I cannot see any Christianity in the early days of his presidency. If the lord and saviour whom we both follow was to turn up today at the American border, he would not be allowed in. He would have a Palestinian passport and no valid birth certificate and would not be able to prove that he was a Christian because he had not invented Christianity yet. That is the extent to which the depraved, racist ideologies of one man have poisoned a once great nation.

I heard Government Members complain about repeated references to the Holocaust, but the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) nailed that point perfectly. There are similarities between how Trump has been talking about Muslims for years and how others talked about Jews in the 1930s. If those similarities are not clear enough for anyone in here to understand, they should not be involved in politics at this or any other level. I found the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) immensely powerful and I want to say something in response to her quote. They came for the Muslims, and I am not a Muslim. They will come for Jews, and I am not Jew. They will come for the gays, and I am not a gay. They will come for the Mexicans, and I am not a Mexican. But, by God, I will speak up and I will join, hand in hand, with the thousands who are in Whitehall right now and in towns and cities the length and breadth of these islands and across the world.

America is our friend, but Donald Trump will never be my friend unless he mends his ways enormously. Friends sometimes do things that are so abominable that we have to say, “You stop that right now or our friendship is over.” We have to ask the Government what is the price of the continued friendship. If we are not prepared to stop that friendship now, how far down the slippery slope does he have to take us before we say, “No more”? If we go too far, it will be too late to stop. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I quoted prose by Robert Burns, but I never thought I would have to quote the same words again. He said that that whatever damages society, or any least part of it, “this is my measure of iniquity.” This is an iniquitous action by an iniquitous President, and I will never cease to speak out against it.

Yemen

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I read an article, in The New York Times I think, suggesting that there may be such changes. It is important that people not just in America but across the world understand that the United Nations is pivotal as the international forum in which countries can come together to resolve their issues. If it did not exist, we would invent it. However, we must recognise that the troubled period it has had in the past six months or so, because of the use of the veto, means that it is perhaps now time for it to be reinvented.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) has said, 7 million people in Yemen are going to starve to death. Ninety per cent. of the food that will keep them alive has to be imported. The sea ports through which that food has to be imported are being deliberately and systematically bombed into oblivion by the Saudi-led coalition. How can it possibly be morally defensive to sell any weapons whatsoever to a regime that is undertaking such inhumane actions?

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand the spirit in which the question is asked, but it is not the case that the ports are being bombed into oblivion. As I said earlier, the Al Hudaydah port is divided into two areas, one operated by the Houthis, the other by the United Nations, and they can get ships in, but there is a queue of ships because the working cranes are not large enough to get the kit off. That is the bottleneck that we need to resolve.

Chagos Islands

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Because of the expense and, indeed, because they would not get a good quality of life. Only 200 maximum said that they wished to do that, and it is not the case that the KPMG report said that it was straightforwardly feasible. It presented a number of scenarios, most of which came out at a very high cost that could not justify the resettlement of Chagossians on the islands.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Minister knows his history. A couple of hundred years ago, his predecessor would have stood in the same place and assured Parliament that the colony called America could not possibly deliver a decent standard of life to its people. Does not he accept that if the decision whether it is in the interests of islanders to return is made here and they are not given the right to decide, that is a return to the days of the arrogant, colonial, Britain-knows-best days, which should have been consigned to the dustbin of history 100 years ago?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, because, as I have already said, that right of self-determination is not considered legally to apply. We have gone through all the arguments today and explained why we think that would be impractical. It is better to look to the future and to make sure that the help that the islanders need, wherever they are, be it in Mauritius, the Seychelles or the United Kingdom, is properly given by Her Majesty’s Government.

Yemen

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Let us be blunt. It is not a small rebel group that fires effectively a ballistic missile at a neighbouring country or attacks a US warship in international waters. That does not fit my definition of a small group of lightly armed individuals. This is a serious and coherent threat to the recognised Government of Yemen, any constitutional process, and, ultimately, to the security of one of the key trade routes of the whole world through what we once saw as the Straits of Aden, with shipping heading up towards the Suez canal. Ultimately, if we allow a failed state in Yemen we will all pay the price for it in the cost of shipping, and disruption to energy supplies.

The alternative to the Saudi coalition—let us assume it is not the Saudis and their allies who intervene—is western intervention to enforce a UN motion. The same people very busily attacking this coalition are the same people who regularly oppose any western intervention in the middle east. For a UN resolution to have any meaning it needs to be implemented and it is questionable who it would want to take the action.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

No, I do not think I will as we are running short of time.

The argument that the support should be removed is wrong.

On the motion itself, it was interesting to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary telling us about the two command centres. That is what leaps out from the motion. She talks about the northern command centre in Riyadh, where our advisers are and where the strikes were not authorised. She then talked about the southern command centre, where our advisers are not, and says that that is where the problems are in terms of targeting. Well, it does say something that we are going to pull away from the site where it is not happening, which would not make any difference.

Aleppo and Syria

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing the debate. May I appeal to Members to bear in mind the subject under discussion, and the subject on which you have agreed to a debate, Mr Speaker? The debate is about a humanitarian catastrophe. It has been caused by the breakdown of political processes, crimes against humanity, acts of terrorism and lots of things, but first and foremost we are talking about an imminent mortal threat to 100,000 children. Every one of those children lives every second of their life not knowing whether they will see the next second. Surely that must be a priority. Establishing a peaceful, democratic and legitimate Government in Syria is important, as is stopping the Russian war machine and neutralising forever the threat from Daesh. All of those things are important, but right now, 100,000 children—our brothers and sisters—are in immediate danger of death. Addressing that must be the top priority.

I sometimes think that it is like four different fire engines turning up to a fire and spending time arguing about whose fault the fire is, while in the building the children are screaming for somebody, anybody, for God’s sake to put out the fire. When the emergency services turn out to a suspicious fire, the priorities are to get people out, extinguish the fire and then investigate whether it was caused by a criminal act, and then, if necessary and appropriate, to take action against those responsible. A lot of matters that have been raised in the debate are important, but we can never lose sight of the fact that, if we spend another three weeks looking for a negotiated settlement, it will be another three weeks of children being killed in the raids, starving to death or dying from basic simple illnesses because they cannot get the treatment they so desperately need and absolutely deserve.

There are probably 35 doctors left in Aleppo. They cannot possibly cope with the demands being placed on them. Each and every one of them risks their life every day. We know they are being targeted. I cannot imagine a situation where being a doctor or a nurse meant risking life every day to go to work. That is what those people are doing—heroes each and every one of them. We know that the largest hospital in the city was hit seven times in a single morning. That was not an accident or a navigational error; it was a deliberate war crime. When the time comes, it should be treated as such. Just to make the point, they went back and bombed it again the next day. It is a deliberate tactic by the Syrians and the Russians to attack civilian targets on one day, wait for the emergency services to respond, and then go in and target them again.

We also need to re-evaluate the part the UK is playing. We need to go back to the reasons why the United Kingdom got involved in military action and reassess whether it is still appropriate. The former Prime Minister, in arguing in favour of military action, described the Brimstone missile as a “unique” asset

“that no other coalition ally can contribute”.—[Official Report, 26 September 2016; Vol. 585, c. 1262.]

That unique asset was deployed by the United Kingdom nine times in the seven months between February and August. It was used more than that in January and December last year, but it does not seem to me like a compelling argument for continued military action.

We were also told that there were likely to be 70,000 moderate troops ready to join in the struggle against Daesh—one requirement for a just war is a reasonable chance of success. I hope the Foreign Secretary can tell us where those 70,000 moderate troops are and whether they still exist. If they do not, how many are there?

The former Prime Minister expected and hoped that, if we supported military action, we would have a transitional Government in Syria in about six months. Those six months passed in June. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how far away we are now? Are we within six months or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, are we further from a peaceful solution than we have ever been? We must face up to those difficult questions. On this occasion, I am asking not because I want to trip up those on the Government Benches. I am asking from the heart. Please can we look to ensure that the part we are playing, whether through military action or anything else, contributes to the solution rather than makes the problem so much more worse?

Can any of us really imagine what 12 million refugees look like? A great many are refugees in their own country, and millions of them are scattered across the globe. I for one would welcome many more if only we were allowed to do so. Nine million of those refugees are women and children who have played no part in any war or any crime. They are utterly innocent. Thirteen thousand children have lost their lives. Are we going to allow that to get to 14,000, 15,000 and 16,000, or are we going to accept, ultimately, that the first priority is to save the lives of those who are left to prevent those appalling statistics from getting any worse?

I am a great fan of the Scots-Australian singer-songwriter Eric Bogle. I did not get his permission to quote his song, but I hope he will not mind the breach of copyright. Many years ago, in response to another conflict, he wrote:

“And have you seen the madmen who strut the world’s stage

Threatening our destruction as they prance and preen and rage?

Rattling nuclear sabres as humanity holds its breath

Feeding on fear and bigotry as the children starve to death”.

The children are starving to death today. Our first priority must be to feed the children by whatever means needed, and then we can deal with the rest of the mess that the Russians, the Syrians and Daesh have created.

Turkey

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I know that the Minister will impress on President Erdogan how important it is that people get a fair trial, regardless of how serious the offence someone is accused of committing—indeed, the more serious the alleged offence, possibly the more important it is that they get a fair trial. It is difficult to see how that can happen when so many judges have been arrested. What practical help will the Minister be offering to the Turkish Government to make sure that anyone who has been arrested and is going to be put on trial gets a fair trial, in accordance with the proper rule of law?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The most practical influence we can have on this is to join with like-minded countries and make our view clear collectively, be it through the EU or other forums that join together countries such as our allies in the United States. The collective and singular voice calling for upholding of the rule of law and the proper functioning of a democratic state is what we can most effectively provide at this early stage. The point about NATO has already been made. The point about the long-term objective of Turkey wanting to join the EU has already been made. I hope that bilateral discussions, the likes of which I hope to have tomorrow, will also impress on the Turkish Government exactly the point the hon. Gentleman has put to the House.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Beckett]

I am familiar with the insistence that, in some way, this is hugely important. That is not the impression that the public are being given or, if I may say so, that the right hon. Gentleman, among others, is striving every day to give them. The public are being given the impression, not that the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was sporadic and patchy but that it was there, but that the intelligence services and the then Prime Minister knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction and deliberately misled the House. That is not true and was never true. No attempt—

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Margaret Beckett]

No.

No attempt to read that into the record can possibly be justified. We did not know it then—no one knew it then—and most people very firmly believed in Saddam Hussein’s intentions.

The third allegation is about the secret commitment. I was not the slightest bit surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) quoting the single sentence that is included in the background notification. I agree with him entirely if his assertion is that it was a profound mistake for the former Prime Minister to use that phraseology. However, I do not read into it the sinister feeling that the right hon. Gentleman does, nor indeed did the Chilcot inquiry. To my mind, if this had been a conversation, rather than a written memorandum, it would have been something along the lines of, “I am on your side, but”—but—“if we are to take action, all these things have to be addressed; we have to go the United Nations and so on.” Chilcot acknowledges that it was Mr Blair’s intent to get President Bush to go through the United Nations route, and that—against the advice of the President’s own allies—he pursued that with determination and had success in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On Remembrance Day 2007 I attended a ceremony in Glenrothes that none of us ever thought we would have to attend: the unveiling of a war memorial in a town that did not exist at the end of the second world war. The memorial has two names on it—those of Private Marc Ferns, aged 21, and Private Scott McArdle, 22. They were let down by their country. They were sent into an illegal war that was not an act of last resort, and they were sent in without the equipment that they were entitled to have to protect them from enemy attack.

I believe that the Chilcot report establishes those facts beyond doubt. It does not bring those two soldiers back—nothing can bring them back—but Chilcot finally establishes facts that some wanted to keep hidden. It starts to give answers to the families. We need to decide on our response, and part of our early response should be for this House of Commons to apologise for the dreadful error of judgment that our predecessors in this place made, which cost so many young lives.

There must also be a proper holding to account of those who were responsible, whose conduct has been brought into the full glare of the Chilcot report. It is not about one person; it is about 179 people. It is not about witch hunts or settling old scores, as was ridiculously suggested earlier. It is about applying the principle that nobody, but nobody, is above the law, and that if those in positions of responsibility betray that responsibility, there will be no hiding place from justice.

I do not have time to highlight the specific parts of the executive summary that I believe point unerringly to the conclusion that former Prime Minister Tony Blair deliberately and persistently misled his Cabinet, misled his Government, misled this House and misled the people of these islands, not about whether he believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but about whether he cared that those weapons of mass destruction existed. He was never interested in a war to disarm; he was only ever interested in a war to achieve regime change. He was acting in support of the policies and interests of a foreign power, even when those were incompatible with the stated policies and objectives of Her Majesty’s Government.

It is not correct to talk about the previous Prime Minister committing war crimes, but there is an argument for saying he was in contempt of this House. However, his conduct, had it been carried out by a diplomat, would have led to a trial for treason. It is unthinkable that, simply because he was Prime Minister, he should somehow be immune to any further investigation. It is simply not good enough that he should be allowed to walk away with nothing more than a half-hearted apology and expression of regret.

Even the motion that the House of Commons approved on 18 March 2003 said nothing about regime change. Even at that point, the former Prime Minister was keeping up the pretence; he was arguing about weapons of mass destruction when what he was interested in was overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. The only conclusion I can form is that Tony Blair’s actions were dishonest and misleading from the beginning. As a result, these islands went to a war they should never have taken part in.

Marc Ferns, Scott McArdle and 177 others went to that war and will never come home. We owe it to their memory—we owe it to their families—to make sure that those responsible have the case against them tested in a court of law.