Pension Schemes

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Julian Lewis

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pension schemes.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I last spoke about this issue in a half-hour debate in Westminster Hall on 17 January, and there have since been a number of significant developments, not least the third report of the Work and Pensions Committee, which is a good and substantial piece of work. I am delighted to see its Chair, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in his place, and I will touch on the report towards the end of my comments.

Events have unfolded for the various pension schemes over the last few months, and what I spoke about in January as being particularly pertinent to the beneficiaries of the defined benefit schemes at BP and Shell has begun to look more like a wider course of conduct. There are significant developments under way, not least the Government’s recent consultations, which could significantly shape the way in which defined benefit pension schemes treat their beneficiaries in the future.

Although I initially thought that I was dealing with a couple of oil companies, I now see that it is a range of different companies. Yesterday I read an alarming brief from the pensioners of Hewlett-Packard. It is pretty clear that, as this area of pension policy develops, an ever larger number of large corporates will take the same path as BP and Shell. Ultimately, it will be our constituents, as beneficiaries, who lose out if we get it wrong and if these companies are allowed to do as they wish, rather than as they ought, on the position of their pensioners.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I have been contacted by three retired members of ExxonMobil, which has a very large refinery in my constituency. I was reluctant to name the firm because I have not had a chance to ask for its side of the story, but the three letters tell me that exactly the same thing has been happening. Those three people were given no discretionary rise this January, and it was then modestly reinstated after protests were made. There is clearly some sort of co-ordinated effort, and not in a good way, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman describes

[Mr Carmichael]

It pains me to say it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What might have started with the oil and gas companies is clearly going much wider.

I should declare an interest, as I hope to be the beneficiary of a defined benefit pension, if I live that long, having been in the House before the move to career average earnings in 2011.

I will not rehearse what I said about the decision of BP, Shell and others not to pay a discretionary increase, which mattered significantly to their pensioners at a time when inflation was running north of 11%. However, it is worth reminding the House that a fundamental point of fairness is at stake here. When one is past retirement age, one no longer has the choices one has when one is of working age. If someone in employment is unhappy with the money they get for the work they do, they can look around and find another job, or they may choose to retrain and do something else more profitable. Once someone is of retirement age, they no longer have that choice and flexibility, which is why it has long been established as a matter of public policy that the beneficiaries of pension schemes require protection. After all, this is simply deferred income, with our being paid later, after we have stopped working, for the service we have done. It is a fundamental aspect of that protection that it should take as its starting point the undertakings that were given.

At BP and Shell, and I do not doubt ExxonMobil, people were given vigorous encouragement to join pension schemes and invest in them. They were given undertakings at the time that one advantage of a big pension scheme at a company such as that was that they would later in life have an income that was protected against inflation. So a question of good faith is at play here.

I have no doubt that for many of the big corporates, the BPs, Shells, Hewlett-Packards and so on, the possibility of paying money to those who are no longer economically active and contributing to their business is tiresome and inconvenient. I never cease to be amazed by the extent to which those at the top of these big corporates seem to think that somehow the corporates are as big as they are simply because of the role that they have played. They do not seem to understand that they are the inheritors of businesses that were built by others, who are now among those who would be the pension beneficiaries. If one is to stand on the shoulders of others, it is always good to respect the fact that one enjoys the view one has because of the shoulders on which one stands. I am sorry to say that that seems to have been forgotten in the boardrooms of too many of our large corporates.

I have expressed these concerns about BP, in particular, before. I remind the House that I have a large number of BP pensioners in my constituency, because for many years BP operated the oil terminal at Sullom Voe. It was a good employer and we valued its presence in the community for many decades. I am concerned now to see that BP pension fund trustees with a collective 94 years of membership of the fund have been replaced with four with precious little involvement, two of whom are citizens of the United States. Since we last debated this issue, both Shell and BP have again refused any discretionary increase to their beneficiaries—in essence, they are doubling down.

The briefing I have received from the Shell Pensions Group is of particular concern. As it is crafted succinctly and concisely, I shall, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, read it into the record. It says:

“Shell has imposed this benefits cut upon its pensioners during a period when:

the Fund was in healthy surplus and well able to afford full cost of living increases without call upon Shell’s sponsor covenant; and

Shell, its shareholders and senior executives benefited hugely from the same energy crisis that was already causing their pensioners extremely high rises in their cost of living.”

The Shell Pensions Group has done considerable and detailed research on that point. From the actuarial reports and the scheme’s accounts, it concludes that

“during the same period, instead of a balanced approach using about 25% of the surplus (as quoted by Shell as necessary for a full cost of living increase) to the immediate benefit of the 93% of members whose pensions are currently deferred or in payment, the Trustee has largely opted to dissipate the surplus by massively accelerating completion of its Low Reliance (upon Shell) investment transition plan. This fifteen year plan was commenced in 2018, but with the acceleration opportunity provided by the surplus arising from increased bond deals, it was almost fully completed in 2022.”

That is where the money that could have funded the pension increases has gone. It has gone into accelerating a programme that was supposed to take 15 years and instead has been concluded in four years.

I am afraid to say to the Minister that the Shell Pensions Group also has strong concerns about the consultation that he launched on 24 February, under the heading “Options for Defined Benefit schemes”. It says:

“We are therefore aghast that…the Pension Minister opened a new consultation…with a view to identifying ways of encouraging and enabling sponsors of DB schemes to claw back surpluses. We feel that the foregoing demonstrates that sponsors require no assistance or encouragement in that and on the contrary, stronger measures are necessary to hold the surplus for the benefit of the beneficiaries, particularly in contributory schemes in which they have invested their own money by way of deferred salary and additional voluntary contributions.”

The Select Committee report has given careful consideration to this matter. Along with most of those to whom I speak, I am well pleased with the recommendations of the report in that regard.

BP also continues to double down. There continues to be no formal engagement with the pensioners’ group—what the previous chief executive officer called “the zero- engagement strategy”. I would have loved to have been at BP’s annual general meeting this year; by all accounts, it sounds to have been a heated affair. The analysis published recently in The Times by its financial editor ties in very well what BP is doing with the concerns we should all have about the future direction of travel. In a recent article, the financial editor wrote:

“Everyone at least pays lip service to the notion that meeting pension promises in full is paramount. No surplus should be touched without a meaty asset buffer being built up. No sponsor should be allowed to extract cash without showing a strong covenant—providing reassurance that it will still be around to pick up the pieces if things go wrong.

But even those safeguards aren’t nearly enough to fully protect members, according to a trenchantly argued submission from a ginger group of BP pension fund members, the BP Pensioners Group. Attempts by employers to evade their promises will be “legion” it says; they will “trim back or remove any benefit possible”; they will “abuse loopholes” in the rules to maximise their clawbacks. They will push hard to minimise what members should “reasonably expect”.

It also warned that the prospect of executive bonuses being fattened up by success in grabbing back surpluses will be far more potent in driving company behaviour than any residual feeling of responsibility to ensure schemes pay every last penny of promised pensions. The message is that it could all end up in an unseemly scramble.”

The article continues:

“The bitter dispute with BP is just “a foretaste” of how relations between many other DB pension fund members and their former employers are going to sour if the surplus-grabbing reforms are pushed through without proper safeguards. The old world is dead.”

That sums up very well the tension between surplus clawback and the need to honour the commitments that were given to beneficiaries. We see so often this mismatch, which affects the ability of the citizen to take on the big corporate, or the big public body. This is just the private sector version of what happened to the sub-postmasters. The Post Office was big enough, strong enough and well enough connected simply to ignore the sub-postmasters, to lie about them, to straight-bat their concerns, and to deny what was obvious to everyone until they could no longer manage to do so.

What is the agenda here, and ultimately who will be the winners and the losers? It is pretty obvious that the pensioners will not be the winners. We should consider the reputational damage that the issue is doing to BP and Shell. Obviously, any oil and gas company these days has to be a fairly thick-skinned corporate entity, but still I ask myself why they simply refuse to engage. Why are they denying the very obvious and clear justice of the case being put forward by their own pensioners groups? I find it difficult to see any explanation other than that the funds are being fattened up before being hived off to insurance companies or others.

The Times—The Thunderer—is not the only news outlet to have reported on BP pensions recently. On 29 March 2024, the PR Newswire reported a case in Houston, Texas, in which the judge told BP that it must reform its pension plan, following an eight-year legal battle over pension losses. Again, we are dealing with big corporates, which have deep pockets and can see off the attention of the small pension beneficiaries. PR Newswire said:

“A group of Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) oil workers received a winning decision…after an eight-year legal battle with BP Corporation North America, Inc. (BP), in a huge victory for oil workers, with a federal judge ruling that BP”—

this is worth paying attention to—

“‘committed fraud or similarly inequitable conduct’ in how it announced a pension formula change more than 30 years ago…Federal judge George C. Hanks, Jr., ruled that BP violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and plaintiffs”—

that is, the workers—

“are entitled to appropriate redress by ‘equitable relief.’ The court ruled plaintiffs demonstrated BP committed multiple violations of ERISA in its communications to its employees…The Sohio retirees maintained, since 1989, BP had insisted the new formula would provide benefits as good as or better than the old formula. The judge agreed and found there is a pension shortfall for many.”

It is worth reflecting exactly what the people who took that case were motivated by: the work that they had done for BP. The article continues:

“Fritz Guenther, lead plaintiff, dedicated his work life to BP often in dangerous conditions on the North Slope of Alaska. He worked two weeks on, two weeks off for years relying on BP’s representations regarding his retirement. While he is still healthy, he says many of his colleagues face health issues, while others still have died within the past eight years. The retirees’ legal fight is taking place against a backdrop of a retirement wave nationwide, with the US Census Bureau estimating that one in five Americans will reach the age 65 or older by 2030.”

That was the nature of the commitment that BP employees in America gave to the company, and it is a measure of the moral bankruptcy that appears to be at the heart of that corporate that it could not see that payback was necessary for these people in their retirement.

I will touch briefly on the Work and Pensions Committee report to which I have repaired. I apologise for doing something that I was always told not to do as a law student: I will read from the rubric, rather than the substance of the report. I welcome what the Committee said about scheme surplus and governance. In particular, the executive summary says:

“Many schemes are much closer than they expected to being able to enter a buy-out arrangement with an insurer to secure scheme benefits.”

I touched on that earlier. The Committee was also right to talk about the various reasons why the flexibility would be advantageous to wider interests. There is a balance to be struck between the company, the beneficiary, and the national interest, in relation to the money being available for investment. That balance has to be properly struck, and it will inevitably slew towards the interests of Government and corporate interests, unless the necessary protections are put in place.

The Committee also observed:

“We note the current consultation on the level of funding a scheme would need to have for surplus extraction to be an option. However, strong governance will also be essential. We recommend that DWP should conduct an assessment of the regulatory and governance framework that would be needed to ensure member benefits are safe and take steps to mitigate the risks before proceeding.”

In this brave new world for defined benefit pensions, that is a warning that the Minister and the Government would do well to take onboard. If they do not, I am afraid that the losers at the end of the day will be our constituents, the beneficiaries of such pension schemes. We will look back in years to come, and we will see that the cases of BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Hewlett-Packard and others are simply the canaries in the coalmine.

Public Order

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Julian Lewis

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Can I first say something about the process this afternoon? The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) highlighted in his speech the many significant issues that this legislation brings to the House, and there are serious debates to be had about the balance between public protest and individual rights. I am not entirely sure that I buy his thesis that the need for protest ended when we achieved universal suffrage, but taking that as we may for the moment, these are significant and serious issues. That is why this House has evolved, over the centuries, a series of measures by which we are able to scrutinise legislation.

The Home Secretary spoke for only 12 minutes to persuade the House why this legislation was necessary. I cannot decide whether or not I am displeased. I generally like her speeches best when they are finished, so 12 minutes was not mercifully short. However, I think that for issues such as this, we deserve something more.

Some of the interventions we have heard from the Government side of the Chamber have also been quite telling. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has just left his place, said that this was to do with the understanding of the left about protest, as if those who protested were always from the left. I remember that in the early years after I was first elected to this House there were significant protests, causing massive disruption, by those opposed to the Bill to abolish hunting with hounds. I do not think that many of them would welcome being labelled as left-wing, and the view taken by the Conservatives in Parliament at that time was very different from the one we hear from them in government.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think his memory is playing him false. I also remember the Countryside Alliance protest marches, and I believe they were organised in full co-operation with the police. It was similar with most of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament protests on the other side of the political spectrum. We are talking here about people who act unilaterally to obstruct others from going about their lawful business. The Countryside Alliance did not do that, so far as I recall.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is actually correct in his recollection but also incomplete, because not all those protests were organised by the Countryside Alliance. I can remember the night when this House debated the Second Reading, and it was impossible for Members of this House to get on to the parliamentary estate because of the violence going on in Parliament Square. So if we are to take a view on the right to protest, that view must apply equally across the board to everybody, of whatever political persuasion, instead of simply, as we seem to be doing today, focusing on one aspect.

President Trump: State Visit

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Julian Lewis

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lewis]

I am pleased to say that this is a debate about President Trump and whether he should come here. I believe that it is entirely right that he should come here. Therefore, issues about any extraneous matters are matters for debate perhaps at another time in another place, but not here or now.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but on what basis does he think giving President Trump a state visit will have the effect he believes? We have already told him he can have one, and just this weekend we hear him again talking about walking away from NATO.

[Dr Lewis]

I am not at all aware that he has talked about walking away from NATO. On the contrary, he has made two criticisms of NATO. One is that he believes that NATO has adapted insufficiently to meet the threat of international terrorism and is too solely focused on state-versus-state confrontation. The other criticism he has made is—if it is an extreme view, it is one shared by the Defence Select Committee—that countries are not spending enough on defence. He has rightly pointed out, as has his Secretary of Defence, that only five out of 28 NATO countries are paying even the 2% of GDP—which is not a target, but a minimum guideline. The failure of NATO countries to pay to protect themselves has been remarked upon time and again to no effect.

I finish with a point that may be strange to relate, but stranger things have happened in history: it may be that the only way to get NATO countries to pay up what they should in order to get the huge advantage of the American defence contribution—they spend 3.5% of their much larger GDP while so many of our NATO fellow member countries do not spend even 2% of their much smaller GDPs—is Donald Trump’s threat. If that is so, Donald Trump, ironically, may end up being the saviour of NATO, not its nemesis.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Julian Lewis

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker. I shall endeavour to follow your injunction to be brief. There is a very good reason to be brief at this stage of consideration of the Chilcot report, and that is that we have had very little time to consider a very large mass of detailed information.

I generally find, when trying to unravel what has happened historically, that it is sensible to look back at some of the original sources. In the very short time available, I have picked out a few original documents that have been included in the mass of published material. One of them is the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment dated 29 January 2003 and entitled, “Iraq: the emerging view from Baghdad”. I shall refer to two quotations. At paragraph 10, the JIC says:

“We are unlikely to receive any advance warning of a pre-emptive attack on the Kurds. We judge that a pre-emptive limited artillery strike on Kuwait using CBW could be launched in as little as two hours.”

At another point in the report, a list of things that might be the result of an attack on Saddam Hussein is given. One of these possibilities is described in the following terms:

“to inflict high enough casualties on any coalition ground forces, perhaps in Kuwait, including through the use of CBW, to halt a coalition attack and to swing public opinion in the West against hostilities.”

Another note, entitled, “Saddam: The Beginning of the End”, which was prepared by the assessment staff following a discussion at the JIC on 19 March 2003, states:

“We judge Iraq has a useable CBW capability, deliverable using artillery, missiles and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles. We judge Iraq possesses up to 20 al-Hussein missiles with a range of up to 650km and 100s of shorter range missiles, mostly with a range of 150km or less. These missiles may be able to deliver CBW, although intelligence suggests that Iraq may lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of such agents.”

The reason I quote those two documents is that they were top secret documents that were never intended for publication until the archives eventually came to be released many years later. They show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the advice received by the Labour Government at that time was that Saddam Hussein did possess, in the assessment of our intelligence agencies, chemical and biological weapons. We now know that that was wrong, but we also know, as a result of the release of those documents, that the Labour Government of the day did not lie to Parliament over the question of their belief that chemical and biological weapons were kept.

More contentious is the question of whether or not Tony Blair exaggerated. That is a matter of harder judgment, but I sometimes wonder what the reaction of Parliament would have been if he had come to us and said, “We really don’t know for certain whether Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons. We know he has had them in the past and used them. Because we can’t be certain that he hasn’t got them now, because of the events that happened only a matter of months earlier, which put al-Qaeda and its suicide brand of terrorism on the world stage, and because we cannot be sure that, for reasons of his own, he might not seek to supply such weapons to suicidal terrorist groups, we judge that we can’t take the chance.”

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s useful approach in going back to the primary sources. Does not the information to which he refers, though, highlight just how dangerous it is to go to war on the basis of intelligence alone, which is essentially what marked the Iraq war out from every other one? Does he agree that the process of making intelligence available for assessment by this House has to be improved, or we could risk doing it again?

[Dr Lewis]

That is very tricky, because there are two scenarios where we can go to war. One is quite straightforward: somebody attacks us and we get on with it, because we are given no choice. The other is a situation such as that under discussion, where we have reason to believe that something horrible could happen and the question arises of whether we should intervene.

One of the most problematic aspects of the Chilcot report is its statement that military action was “not a last resort” and that the peace process could have been given longer. The reality is that, unless an attack is launched on us, we can always go on talking for longer. I cannot think of any point at which it would be possible to say, “We have to launch an attack now because there is no prospect of continuing to try to find out without taking military action.”

The right hon. Gentleman talks about this House having to assess the intelligence, but I am not sure that that helps us too much. We can never be certain that what we are assessing is the whole picture, because sometimes, as those of us who have served on bodies such as the Intelligence and Security Committee will know, there are sources of intelligence that cannot be revealed. Therefore, to present raw intelligence to the House, without being able to say that there is other intelligence not being presented to the House, leaves the House in an anomalous position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I commend her for her thoughtful and well-informed contribution to the debate. I did not agree with every point that she made—no one would expect me to—but I did agree with her about the tone that we should adopt in our approach to this debate: it right for us to approach it with a degree of humility and to be careful not to reinvent history.

I was here in 2003, and I remember those debates. As I listened to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I could hear her speaking from the Opposition Benches, but I kept looking over to the Government Benches, because that is where I remember her sitting when she made her speeches in the 2003 debates, and they were very powerful speeches.

I well remember the atmosphere described by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who recalled the way in which the votes were whipped and the way in which the Government really did make every effort to steamroller the motions through the House. He said that he felt vindicated. I know what he meant by that, but I do not sense anything quite as positive as vindication in this. If anything, I feel slightly depressed, because I think that there was an inevitability that was not addressed by the House at the time, and I fear that we would still not address it if we were placed in the same position today.

I will say a bit more about that later and about how I think the House should deal with it in the future, but I should first place on record our gratitude to Sir John Chilcot and his team for doing a thorough piece of work. Like others, I have been critical of the length of time that it has taken, but there is no denying the thoroughness of the work that has been done. What we see before us on the Table certainly clarifies one thing in my mind: we were absolutely right to set up an independent inquiry. We have been chivvying that man and his team for years, and now we see why it has taken him as long as it has.

The report fills in a lot of the background detail. It does not tell us anything that we did not already know or have cause to believe, in the broadest terms. However, Sir John has placed a number of dots on the page, and it is now for Parliament to join them up to produce a discernible picture. In particular, he says, quite clearly and quite fairly, that he will not express a view on the legality of the war, but he offers us evidence from which we can draw our own conclusions.

We are shown the already infamous memo from Tony Blair to George Bush in which he said:

“I will be with you, whatever.”

I think it important for the House to put that in the context of the time. As others have pointed out, Tony Blair was always meticulous in the House in making a case that was based on weapons of mass destruction. That was not true of George Bush. George Bush never pretended this was anything other than an exercise in regime change, so when Tony Blair wrote that memo to George Bush, he was saying, “I will support you even though I know what you are doing is something which is done on a quite different basis than that for which I am seeking authority from the House of Commons.” That is significant because, of course, a war entered into for the sole purpose of regime change would be an illegal war, whereas one for which the purpose was the removal of weapons of mass destruction was one for which there could have been a legal basis.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) posed a pertinent question. He asked, “How would the House have reacted if Tony Blair had been more balanced and even-handed in the presentation of the evidence?” That is where the detail of what Chilcot tells us is important, because in fact we see from that memo why Tony Blair was not more even-handed and balanced in the presentation of the evidence: he was working to an objective; he was working to an aim; he was supporting a commitment he had already made.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Syria vote in 2013. I gently suggest that he might want to refresh his memory of the terms of the motion against which he and others voted, quite legitimately. I do not challenge his right or his reasons for doing so, but it was not a vote to remove Assad; it was a motion instructing the Government to obtain authority from the United Nations and then to come back to this House before any further military action was to be sanctioned. That was why I was prepared to support it.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I was not planning to intervene as I have made my speech, but—this is one of the knock-on effects of the matter we are discussing today—by the time we got to that vote we knew perfectly well that if we had passed that motion, the bombing would have started that weekend. All the planes were ready to go, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is, if I may gently say so, naive enough to believe anything else.

[Mr Carmichael]

With respect, I do not want to get taken down a side alley and into the question of Syria, compelling though that is, but the bombing could not have started on the authorisation of this House on the basis of the motion put to the House and against which the right hon. Gentleman voted. It is interesting to speculate, although not necessarily wholly germane to this debate, what would have happened had the House gone down the route urged on it in 2013—what might then have been the reaction of President Obama, how things might then have moved on, whether we would have been put in the position we were in relation to the vote we took last year on Syria. What I think is undeniable is that all these decisions and others—Libya is a good example—were taken under a cloud, which still hangs over our foreign policy and our role in the world, as a result of the experience of the debate on Iraq.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) pointed out, it is remarkable that if regime change was the agenda that sat behind the Americans’ intervention in Iraq, they did so little to prepare for its aftermath. The removal of the Ba’ath party from government must stand out as being one of the biggest strategic errors we have ever been party to. It completely failed to understand that many ordinary Iraqis who were engaged in Iraqi government and civic society did so as part of the Ba’ath party because it was the only party in town. To remove the infrastructure of government in the way that was done in 2003 has left a void in that infrastructure that remains a problem for Iraq to this day. The country has never recovered from that, and it provided fertile ground from which extremism flourished. That was all predicted by many of us who questioned the decision to go to war in 2003.

The House today is very different from the House that took that decision. Only 172 of the 659 Members who were here in 2003 remain Members today. I calculate that 141 of those 172 voted in favour of taking action, and 21 voted against it. I re-read the Hansard reports of the February and March debates before I came here today, and I was reminded that there was not a happy atmosphere in the House at the time. On that, I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. It was tense and brutal, and deliberately so. It was the creation of that atmosphere that forced many people to vote for the enterprise against their better judgment.

It is important that we approach this matter with some humility. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) garnered some support. It said that the case for war had not been proven, and that was certainly the view that I took. I was not going to vote for a motion that said we would never go to war in any circumstances, because, like other Members, I knew that Saddam was a brutish dictator. We also knew that he had had weapons of mass destruction in the past. In fact, we had been quite happy to turn a blind eye to that fact because he had been using them against Iran, whose regime we were also quite happy to see removed.

It was that sort of double standard in our foreign policy that I hoped we might see the end of after the enterprise in Iraq. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. In the speech that I made in the debate in 2003, I called for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 242 on the question of Palestine. Sadly, we are no further ahead on that issue today than we were in 2003. If anything, we are further behind. That is why, should we ever find ourselves in this position again, the House must take its duties more seriously. We must ask questions. We cannot accept assertions when we should be given evidence.