Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend must bear in mind that there is also a lesson for those not invited. In the case of the unsuccessful Geneva peace conference that we held earlier this year on Syria, we and others were entirely open to the inclusion of Iran. We only wanted to know that Iran would support the creation of a transitional Government in Syria as a solution to the problem, in the same way that Russia has done through its support for the Geneva 2012 declaration. That was quite a small requirement for adding it to the guest list, but Iran was unable to do that. The effort has to come from Iran as well as from the rest of us.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his important conference last week. However, while I recognise that real progress is being made in conflict zones, it is a very different story when the same survivors of rape make it to UK shores. Will he add to the list of things to raise with the Home Secretary a more systemic concern about our asylum system, which often punishes and humiliates women a second time when they arrive? They are expected to talk to men, often on their own or in front of their children. It really is not a sensitive way forward.

[Mr Hague]

I will add that to the list, but I hope that the hon. Lady will also bear in mind that the Home Secretary said in her recent announcements on admitting Syrian refugees into the UK that we would give particular priority to people who are vulnerable and at risk of violence, including sexual violence, so it is clear that the Government are attempting to assist in such cases, but where there is criticism we will examine it and respond to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The probability is that we will be working for all the objectives that I stated earlier so that, by achieving them, we will be able to recommend that Britain stay in the European Union—but we will have to achieve them.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Amnesty International is warning that Gaza’s 1.7 million residents are facing a public health catastrophe, with chronic fuel and power shortages. The Foreign Secretary often says that he is repeatedly urging the Israeli authorities to ease their restrictions on Gaza, but nothing ever happens on the ground. Will he now at least call for a formal assessment of whether the human rights conditions in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement are being met?

[Hugh Robertson]

The British Government have made their views on this matter abundantly clear; I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the statement that we released recently on the situation in Gaza. She has suggested that the situation is dire, but she will also be aware that part of the problem was the creation of the tunnels, which have now been blocked up. We are urging the Israeli authorities to facilitate free trade and to alleviate the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his contribution and congratulate him on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

I want to set out my concern for the 30 individuals who remain incarcerated in a Russian jail, and add my voice to those calling for the charges of piracy to be dropped and for the activists and journalists to be released. I also want to recall why these brave individuals were prepared to take peaceful direct action at the oil drilling platform operated by Gazprom in Arctic waters. The threat that oil drilling poses to the Arctic region is immense. The current failure of global leaders, both here and elsewhere, to respond with sufficient urgency to the threat of climate change is overwhelming.

It is difficult to imagine what it must be like being detained in a Russian jail for more than a month. The reports in the media of letters from the activists and the concerns and feelings of their families and loved ones pierce through sharply into normal life. Phil Ball is one of those being held. He is a nature photographer and film maker who has been credited on David Attenborough’s films, and a father to sons aged eight and seven and a three-year-old daughter. His brother has spoken of the contact he has had with him. He said:

“While Phil seemed quite ‘down’ in his earlier letters, he seemed stronger in this one to me and is very keen we don’t just get them back and forget why they all went out there—to highlight the damage which is being wreaked on the Arctic.”

1 know that all the UK citizens are being well represented by their own MPs and am told that the FCO is making every effort on their behalf. I am sure that all of us will want to keep up the pressure on the FCO publicly and behind the scenes and to work closely with Greenpeace to secure the release of all those detained.

I want to focus my remaining comments on the concerns that motivated those men and women to board the Arctic Sunrise, and that they continue to want to highlight. The Greenpeace ship, crew, volunteers, campaigners and journalists were there to highlight the Arctic oil rush. Fronted by companies such as Gazprom and Shell, the rush for oil is bringing unprecedented risks to the area and to us all in terms of climate change. The activists are playing a key role in letting the world know about the catastrophic consequences of any potential oil spill for the many people living in the Arctic who rely on their natural environment for prosperity, both directly and through tourism, and for marine wildlife and ecosystems.

The activities of the oil companies do not tend to attract much attention here in the UK. The investigative work and the non-violent direct action of Greenpeace and other organisations are helping to shine a light on what is taking place. Every 18 months, more than 4 million barrels of oil spew into the Arctic ocean, where it becomes everyone’s problem. For decades, Russia’s oil giants have been polluting parts of the country’s once thriving landscape, often in secret, spilling oil on to the land and into the Arctic ocean, poisoning the water and destroying the livelihood of local communities and indigenous peoples.

Greenpeace has investigated and documented the ongoing disaster, revealing how the oil seeps into rivers and farmland and how it spreads and becomes a thick, heavy mire, suffocating plants and animals and forcing people to abandon the area. The oil contaminates food and water supplies, and people live with the knowledge that their once clean rivers, forests and air now pose serious health risks.

Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, carried out an inquiry into the risks of drilling in the Arctic, and the future of the region more generally. The inquiry concluded by calling for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic region, at least until we have put in place stronger safeguards, such as a pan-Arctic oil spill response standard and a stricter financial liability regime for oil and gas operations, requiring companies to prove that they can meet the costs of a clean up.

The peaceful activists on the Arctic Sunrise put their freedom on the line to highlight issues not just around oil spills but around climate change. Last week, 11 Nobel peace prize laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote to President Putin offering their support for the Arctic 30. Describing the Arctic as a “precious treasure of humanity”, the signatories are all supporting efforts to protect the high north from oil exploration and climate change.

On Friday 27 September, the Arctic 30 woke up in their freezing jail cells after a whole week of incarceration. On the same day, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on the science of climate change. Scientists are more certain than ever that human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, is driving a powerful underlying trend of rising global temperatures. The IPCC report also underlines the need for substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change. For the first time, it talks about the need for a global carbon budget—the amount of carbon that it is safe to release into the atmosphere. That view echoes recent reports from organisations such as Carbon Tracker. There is a stark choice. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to leave at least two thirds of existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground, unburned. It does not matter whether we are talking about Arctic oil, tar sands from Canada or Madagascar, or shale gas from Sussex; we just need to leave unconventional fossil fuels in the ground.

One of my constituents wrote to me recently about her concern for the Arctic 30. Summarising the situation, she said:

“I don’t agree with the exploitation big oil companies like Shell are wanting to pursue, drilling in this delicate environment for profit. Climate change is a threat to us all and I strongly believe that a new direction and other alternatives should be considered and more researched.”

She went on to say:

“I tune into BBC Parliament regularly and often find myself disappointed by the lack of interest and low seat count MPs have in debates discussing”—

climate change and—

“similar matters concerning wildlife and the environment.”

Across the world, citizens are increasingly taking non-violent direct action against fossil fuel companies because of the failure of democratically elected representatives to act in the public interest, to stand up to the small number of fossil fuel giants whose business models are fundamentally incompatible with a safe climate and to direct their attention to keeping the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground instead. The latest IPCC report confirms that the ground is where fossil fuels must remain if we are to keep climate change below the “dangerous” threshold of 2°.

Earlier this year, the UK and other G8 nations reiterated that commitment. They said:

“Action needs to continue and intensify as a matter of urgency. Ministers remain committed to long term efforts with a view to limiting the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”

That is what they said, but it is “deeds not words” that matter.

Four years ago, climate scientist James Hansen was first arrested when taking part in a protest against coal mining in West Virginia. In Canada and elsewhere, civil society resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline is diverse and growing. That is because the exploitation of tar sands is devastating First Nation communities and the local environment, and spells game over for our climate.

The resolve and courage of the Arctic 30 is truly humbling. Today’s debate is an important opportunity to call for their release, and also to put on the parliamentary record the contribution they are making to the fight to protect the Arctic and to create a safe climate and a better future for our children and grandchildren.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the implications of the recent violence in Turkey for stability in the region.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What reports he has received on the Turkish authorities’ response to the recent demonstrations in Taksim square.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We are following events in Turkey closely and the Foreign Secretary and I have spoken in the past few days to our Turkish counterparts. We very much hope that matters can be resolved peacefully. A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is important for regional stability. Turkey remains an important foreign policy partner and NATO ally, and we shall continue to support its continuing reform agenda and encourage Turkey to respect its obligations as defined in the European convention on human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that all human rights, as set out in the European convention to which Turkey, like us, is a party, are fully respected. Some of the images from Istanbul and Ankara are certainly disturbing. As friends of Turkey, we hope to see those problems resolved peacefully. We noted the statements last week by the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey that the police had overreacted in some instances and an investigation into those actions was needed. We support all efforts to address the protesters’ genuine concerns through dialogue and consultation.

[Caroline Lucas]

Over the weekend, more than 100 civilians, including doctors and nurses treating the injured, were arrested and held in incommunicado detention. There have also been reports of beatings. In the light of that appalling situation, will the Minister not only state his hope, but call on the Turkish authorities to disclose the location of everyone who has been arrested and to release immediately medical professionals who are identified by the Turkish Medical Association? Will he also make a public statement condemning incommunicado detention, because we have not heard enough of the public outrage and it needs to be heard today?

[Mr Lidington]

We are obviously concerned about the reports of the arrest of lawyers and doctors who were treating injured protesters at the scene of the demonstrations. The freedoms of assembly, association and expression are important rights. It is fair to recognise that Turkey has carried through substantial judicial and political reforms in the past 20 years. It is a very different country from when the military ruled and the army were deployed on the streets at the first sign of a demonstration, but that does not detract from the fact that the basic freedoms and human rights that Turkey has signed up to need to be respected.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling me to secure this debate, which has the support of colleagues across the House. It gives us a chance to reflect not only on the Iraq war but on Parliament’s role in that war. It is a debate that I believe our constituents would expect us to hold as we pass the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion.

All of us will have in mind today the 179 members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in this conflict. I pay tribute to them and to their bravery, and my sympathy goes out to their families for their terrible loss. Other service personnel have suffered physical and mental trauma as a result of the war which, for many, will be with them for the rest of their lives. We also have in mind the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were killed during the war or who have died since in military operations, bombings, acts of terrorism or through sickness and disease.

Possible estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq vary wildly. A Lancet survey between March 2003 and June 2006 pointed to over 650,000 excess deaths, while an Opinion Research Business survey put deaths as a result of the conflict at over 1 million up to 2007. The Iraq Body Count, or IBC—an independent US-UK group—reports 112,976 documented civilian casualties and points out that further analysis of the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs may add 12,000 civilian deaths to that the number. The IBC has always said that its number is an undercount because proper records have not been kept by the coalition forces, a fact that tells its own story.

Whatever the true number, there is no dispute that there has been a grave civilian price, one that continues to be paid and threatens to get worse. For most of us today, this 10th anniversary of the invasion is largely history, but for the people of Iraq it is a state of continuing war. Iraqis are being hit by almost daily attacks, with tensions growing between the Shi’a Muslim majority and the minority Sunnis, raising fears of a return to the worst level of sectarian violence. Just this week we have seen harrowing reports of at least seven people killed in a single day in a wave of bombings and attacks in central and northern Iraq. Last month was the bloodiest since June 2008, with over 1,000 Iraqi civilians and security officials killed, according to the UN.

It is a grim understatement to say that the Iraqi people do not have security. There are deep concerns about human rights, massive corruption, unemployment and miserable basic services, such as electricity and water supplies. But even if Iraq finds a way out of its current difficulties, as we all fervently hope it will, there is the legacy of the last 10 years of warfare and terrorism as well. Part of that legacy is the deeply disturbing cases being taken to our High Court, involving more than 1,000 killings and acts of torture committed in Iraq by UK forces. We must have public scrutiny of the systemic issues arising from these cases and look to reform the training and oversight of our armed forces.

What of our own country? Do we feel more secure? Is the terrorist threat diminished because of those 10 years of bloodshed and chaos? In fact, the contrary is true. According to the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Iraqi invasion increased the terror threat in Britain, radicalising a generation of young British Muslims and substantially increasing the risk of a terrorist atrocity on UK soil. A major unprovoked attack without UN authorisation took place with dire consequences. These terrible and deeply troubling outcomes add real substance to the argument that this was the biggest foreign policy failure of recent times.

As an individual, I opposed the war in Iraq because it was my view that the burden of justification for undertaking a major unprovoked attack had not been met. I joined the anti-war protest in February 2003, which saw between 1 million and 2 million people marching in London, the biggest political demonstration in history. In successive polls by different and reputable agencies, around two thirds of British citizens say the Iraq war was a mistake.

Ultimately, Parliament was responsible for that decision to go to war. It was MPs in this House who questioned, debated and voted on the decision, both on 26 February and 18 March 2003. But if this war was a mistake, what should Parliament do now? If it were a public body—a school, perhaps, or a hospital or local authority—we would expect an admission that things had gone wrong and a pledge to learn the lessons so that it could not happen again. That, I believe, is at the heart of today’s debate. Not a blame game or resignations; not heads on platters or humble pie; not a chorus of “I told you so.” What I want to focus on specifically is the role of Parliament. How was it that, with some very honourable exceptions, parliamentary scrutiny failed? How was it that the intelligence could be so misinterpreted and misused? How was it that facts clearly in the public domain were ignored or dismissed?

These are not academic questions. Their relevance and consequences are all too real today. We cannot simply leave them to others to answer. The Hutton inquiry and the Butler inquiry had their own terms of reference. Hutton’s remit was the death of Dr David Kelly; Butler’s was a panel, handpicked by Tony Blair, that was insufficiently independent and held far too many hearings in private. Shamefully, we still await the results of the Chilcot panel fully five years after it was established, while battles continue over declassifying material. I know of at least one freedom of information battle that is still being had with the Foreign Office; the sticking point is not national security, but national embarrassment.

All of these processes can play a useful part in revealing some of the truth of what happened in the lead-up to the war and beyond. But it is not the job of these men, however eminent or well intentioned, to stand in judgment on Parliament. Parliament is sovereign, and must remain sovereign even when it comes to considering its own failures and necessary reforms. As parliamentarians in 2013, we can and must ask, and answer, whether sufficient evidence was available in the public domain to allow Government Back Benchers and Opposition MPs to both question and oppose the Government’s case for war in 2003.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have always found that hindsight in politics is a great thing and makes things a lot easier. The hon. Lady should look at the evidence that came not from the Government or the security services, but from Hans Blix in his final report. I had the honour of meeting him in New York the night before his final report was published and he clearly said to me and to Bruce George—a right hon. Gentleman at the time—not that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, but that he needed more time, with full co-operation, to determine whether Saddam did.

[Caroline Lucas]

I can only ask why, then, did we not give Hans Blix more time? I, too, have met Hans Blix and I, too, have heard him say that were the weapons inspectors given more time, they could have established the answer without the bloody war that happened.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recall that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to go back to Iraq because of the decision of the British and US Governments in January 2003?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely recall that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It was in the interests of this country for the weapons inspectors not to go back into Iraq so that the Government could make that case.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Last night, I looked at the notebook that I had at the time. [Interruption.] No, it is in my own handwriting. What it said is not that Hans Blix needed more time, but that he needed more time if he was going to get full co-operation from Saddam, and at that time he clearly was not.

[Caroline Lucas]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to other quotes from Hans Blix, who made it clear that to a great extent Saddam Hussein was co-operating and that with more time we could have avoided the war.

We as parliamentarians have the role and the job of scrutinising the available evidence that was in the public domain. I entirely take the point that hindsight is a wonderful thing. The point I want to make is that plenty of information was in the public domain.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing this debate, but on the manner in which she is presenting the case. Following on from what the former loyal Minister of the previous Government in the Ministry of Defence said, it is not a question of the benefit of hindsight. Many Members of the House, both on the Opposition Benches and, in some honourable cases, on the Government Benches, scrutinised the evidence at that time and came to the conclusion that it was unwise in those circumstances to proceed with engaging in military action in Iraq.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I will shortly pay tribute to those hon. Members who did stand up in this place, who did scrutinise and who did ask the right questions. The fact that they came to the conclusions that they did demonstrates that the evidence was there. Unfortunately, there was a will not to look at some of it.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Lady goes on, may I say in respect of Mr Hans Blix—I have made this point outside the House—that there is a profound disconnection between what he is saying now and what he said at the time? What he said at the time, and he repeated it in a book in 2004, was that he thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat. I know of no provenance whatsoever for the claim that the inspectors were prevented from continuing their work in Iraq by either the US or the UK in January 2003.

Moreover, the final reports from Hans Blix complained about a lack of co-operation, the inability of inspectors to interview scientists from Iraq inside or outside Iraq, and the continuing intimidation. The final report that he made, which I had to force him to publish, on 7 March 2003, catalogued in 29 chapters of 170 pages the unanswered questions that Mr Blix thought Saddam had to answer, even at that stage, about all the chemical and biological weaponry that had been known about in the past and which Saddam had failed to explain. That is where Blix was at the time. My last point is this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

No. Will the right hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am trying to be very tolerant to facilitate the debate but there are lots of Members who want to participate, and making a speech on an intervention, however important the point, is not acceptable. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to make the rest of his points.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his intervention. Obviously, he has a great deal of information from that time.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady also acknowledge that there was a huge amount of foresight on the part of people who were opposed to the war, not entirely on the existence of weapons? Many nations have weapons of mass destruction. What was totally implausible was the suggestion that Saddam Hussein would use those weapons against America and against the United Kingdom in a way that would be suicidal and guarantee own defeat. We know what the reasons for the war were, and they were in the mind of George Bush.

[Caroline Lucas]

I welcome that intervention. We need to recognise that a threat is made up of the capability to use weapons and also the intention to use them. What Hans Blix made very clear at that point was that there was not, as far as he could see, any intention to use them. What he wanted to find out was what else there was.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will give way shortly. Let me make a little more progress.

I keep coming back to the importance of MPs—ourselves—scrutinising the decision-making process that took place at the time. In that context, I was surprised and disappointed when, back in March this year, the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have a great deal of respect, wrote what was intended, I think, to be a confidential letter to members of his party, telling senior members of the Government that they should not be drawn on the controversial issues that drew the UK into the Iraq war. They should, he suggested, wait until Chilcot had reported, but that of course might not be until the next election—who knows? We are still waiting after five years, and in any case, Chilcot does not have a monopoly on the issue, and I doubt whether he or his team would want one.

I turn now to what went wrong. There is plenty of evidence that shows that the case for war set out by the Blair Administration in 2003 was deeply flawed. Intelligence was misused, concerns expressed by experts were suppressed, and the legal and political position was misrepresented. From this arises the belief among many journalists and members of the public as well as Members of this House that they were misled into supporting the war in Iraq. In fact, when one reads the documents and listens to the testimony, it is hardly far-fetched to call it a conspiracy.

In brief, Tony Blair decided to join the US in invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. He knew that the British people and their representatives were dubious about the wisdom of this, to say the least, so he used every opportunity to twist the evidence to isolate his critics and encourage his supporters. Britain was indeed spun into war. This is the foundation of the familiar position that many former war supporters now take. Often they will say, “If I had known then what I know now, I would not have supported the war”, but is that enough? Does that really explain what happened?

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

In 2005 I went out to Iraq. Then, even senior military officers were questioning the legality of their being there and having gone in. So it is not simply a matter of us doubting it. They were unsure of the legal position as well.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It would really help me to chair the debate if Members made brief interventions and stayed on their feet while they were doing so. I know the hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way under some considerable pressure, but I am sure she will bear in mind the length of time that she is speaking and the others wishing to participate.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.

Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.

I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:

“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”

But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.

Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:

‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’

Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:

“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”

The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.

Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I got on well with the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who was a very good Member of Parliament, but I think that the hon. Lady is reading far too much into this in order to support her conspiracy theory speech. On the same visit to New York, I also met the French ambassador to the UN, and it was quite clear that there was no way the French would vote for a resolution that endorsed action, and they were working with the Germans, who took the same position. It is not the case that the French were somehow up for negotiation.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the point is the issue of when they were going to accept intervention—

[Mr Jones]

They never were.

[Caroline Lucas]

Well, I have seen the evidence from Chirac and the way it was treated when it came to the Chilcot inquiry, and I think that it is perfectly plain that Chirac’s intervention was deliberate misinterpreted. The words were taken in the wrong order and made to mean something different. [Interruption.] We can trade our beliefs across the Chamber, but the bottom line is that there was evidence out there that would have led Members to suspect that what they were being told at that point was not necessarily the case.

[Mr Straw]

First, the transcript, and indeed the video, were available to all Members on both sides of the House, so they could make their own judgments on it, and the vast majority made the judgment that we made about what had happened. Secondly, what we were seeking in the second UN resolution was not war, but peace—I was desperate for it—by an ultimatum that included six tests, which were drafted by Hans Blix, by the way, and they were tests that Saddam could easily have passed had he wished to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I will move on.

I want to talk about the former Member for Livingston, Robin Cook. Reading his resignation speech makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, because it is all there: the reasons why the war was unnecessary and unjustified, the critique of the Government’s position and the exposure of the misinformation and deceit. It was delivered with eloquence and with the authority and credibility of a former Foreign Secretary and member of the 2003 Cabinet. Yet his warnings were heeded only by the 23% of MPs who voted to oppose the war. How could that happen?

The right hon. Member for Blackburn said earlier that the transcript of what Chirac had said was in the public domain, and that is precisely my point. Given that the evidence was there, how is it that more MPs did not come to a different conclusion? The answer, which I will make in greater detail later in my speech, is that they were whipped massively through a system in this House that means they give up their responsibility to make their own decisions. My point is that that kind of whipping on a vote of such importance and conscience is not the right way forward.

There are many potential explanations for why Robin Cook’s warnings were heeded by so few, but most come down to the idea that Members perhaps trusted the view that there was a subplot to the invasion that the Government could not be open about, that perhaps the Government knew much more about the risk Saddam posed to the UK than they were able to say, and that perhaps the conditions were right for establishing Iraq as a democratic, pro-western state. In some cases, Members were taken to one side and given off-the-record briefings.

But I think that the answer is much more simple: too many Members put loyalty to their leader and to their party above their own judgment. They swallowed their private doubts, accepted what they were told and voted accordingly. That misplaced trust crossed party lines. It is deeply regrettable that the tradition of loyalty meant that hon. Members such as Robin Cook were not heard. It is also regrettable that the Tory leadership supported the war so unquestioningly. Perhaps there was a feeling that that level of deceit was simply inconceivable when it came to an issue as serious as war. Yet now we know that it was not.

Returning to the “If I had known then what I know now” defence and looking to the future, we can perhaps conclude thus: no Member of this House should ever take on trust the case for war. They must listen to all sides with open minds, even to the refuseniks and the usual suspects in case this time they might just be on to something. They must look at the sources themselves and ask themselves and their leaders the tough questions: is there an alternative, and what if it goes wrong? There is plenty more evidence of the fact that there was material in the public domain that should have enabled more hon. Members to make a more informed decision.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Lady not agree, then, that one lesson we can learn, and perhaps agree on in this debate, is the need for a war powers Act that would mean Parliament must be consulted and must vote specifically on any military action undertaken on our behalf?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that is exactly the point I want to make. There should a mandatory vote of this House on issues as important as going to war. Moreover, and critically—this is the burden of what I am saying today—that vote must be a free vote based on conscience. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken along by the rhetoric of party leaders or to be bullied by party whipping and therefore, in a sense, to abrogate our responsibility to make our own decisions.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the Conservative party. I was there and know what was going on in the party. The atmosphere was very relaxed. Although there was whipping, we were allowed to vote against it. Someone resigned from the Whips Office but immediately rejoined. I voted against it. We formed a judgment. I am afraid that most of my colleagues believed the Prime Minister and took the view that Iraq was a threat, but no pressure was put on Conservative MPs.

[Caroline Lucas]

Clearly I do not have the inside information that the hon. Gentleman has, but I have heard many a different story told elsewhere.

In conclusion, I said at the start of my speech that the justification for the debate is that Parliament must accept that it made a mistake in 2003 and set out how it will prevent such a mistake from happening again. I believe that it comes down to the acceptance of one principle: there must be a limit to party loyalty, and even of loyalty to the leader of a party. Loyalty is in some way an admirable quality. There are times when it is right to bite one’s tongue, go along with the majority, set aside one’s opinions and accept the judgment and experience of others. But there are also limits. Committing our country to war, asking our young men and women to fight and accepting that men, women and children will die in our name must be beyond the sway of party loyalty.

I would like to see the end of the royal prerogative on war and the establishment of a constitutional convention that votes on war are not subject to party whipping. I know that some Members might dismiss that suggestion, but it is a serious one and I urge hon. Members to consider it carefully. Of course informal whipping would have taken place anyway, but it would have been different. Taking away the formal obligation to vote according to the party line would have pushed more hon. Members to look at the evidence for themselves and vote accordingly. It would have given their constituents more power and leverage and put more responsibility on the shoulders of each Member. Scrutiny would not have been dulled by loyalty in the same way.

Like the issues of capital punishment and abortion, committing troops to war is a matter of conscience, and MPs should be, at least formally, free from the heavy hand of the Whips. This principle is relevant now as we grapple with the terrible situation that is unfolding in Syria. Members should demand not just a vote on whether we arm the rebels but a genuinely free vote. If Iraq teaches us one thing, it is that if MPs are to vote on grave matters of conflict, for that vote to be meaningful it must be the view of their own conscience, not their party’s line. As individual constituency MPs, many of us have constituents who have died in Iraq—who have lost relatives there. It is no answer to them to say that on a serious matter like this we did not challenge the case and satisfy ourselves that war was justified and unavoidable.

In future, when we are faced with a decision about whether to go to war, we simply cannot have a situation where the Government of the day tell the story and we take what they say on trust. MPs have to do the work themselves. In any future vote, we and our successors must establish, to our own satisfaction and on evidence that we have seen and heard ourselves, that the case for war has been made. Three lines on a Whips sheet are not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate and on her passionate introduction, in which she put on the record her strong views. Clearly, there is still significance and passions are still aroused 10 years on.

I also congratulate the other two hon. Members who have spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay about the importance of removing the fundamentals that give support to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. He will be well aware that the United Kingdom has done that not just in Iraq, but in other conflict states, with a particular focus at the moment on Somalia and Mali.

More broadly, the United Kingdom has contributed directly towards reconstruction in Iraq. We have helped to provide vaccinations for millions of children, improve access to safe water for more than 1 million people in southern Iraq and provide additional electricity equivalent to that used by a city the size of Leeds. We have also trained tens of thousands of teachers and approximately 20,000 policemen and women.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was right to point out that this matter was a significant part of the lives of those of us who were Members of Parliament in 2003, and that it exercised both ourselves and our constituents. I would suggest that it was almost the only point of debate at the point in time when the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others were deciding what they should do.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion set out in her opening speech, the decision to go to war in 2003 was one of the key foreign policy decisions of the last decade. As I have said, I and other Members who were in the House at the time will remember it for ever. However, it is important to state at the outset that the policy of this Government is not to comment on the decision to go to war ahead of the report of the Chilcot inquiry. I will therefore not do so here, but will look at the future of Iraq and the UK’s relationship with Iraq.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reference to the Chilcot inquiry. Can he advise us when we might expect to see the report and whether he is aware of machinations in the background on issues of declassification that are holding it up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has raised exactly the point that we need to talk about. We believe that somehow it is all the fault of Blair and Bush—this is the myth that has entered the national consciousness. My experience as someone inside the system is that we have to look much more deeply at ourselves. We need to look at the Foreign Office, the military, the intelligence services and Parliament. These people, Blair and Bush, do not operate in a vacuum; they operate in a culture that did not challenge and shape the debate sufficiently. It is not realistic for Blair or Bush to know deeply about these situations and it is simply a constitutional convention, of course, that the people who make the decision are the Blairs and the Bushes. However, if we look at what got us trapped on the ground in Iraq—at why, for example, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) found it difficult to get out of Iraq or why President Obama found it difficult to say no to the surge—it is because these people are part of a much bigger system.

The reform of that system is threefold. First, we need radically to reform the way in which the Foreign Office operates. The Foreign Secretary has begun; we need to go much further, thinking all the time about the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to focus on people with deep linguistic and cultural expertise. We need to ensure that we change all the bureaucratic mechanisms. The core competency framework for promotion in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The amount that people are paid for learning languages in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The posting lengths need to be changed. The security conditions for the Foreign Office need to be changed, because unless we begin to understand deeply and rigorously what is happening on the ground, it is difficult to challenge the Blairs and the Bushes.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful speech, but when it comes to whether it is right or wrong to blame Bush and Blair, I think he is being a little too generous in his assessment of them. He is giving the impression that they were sitting waiting to hear what the evidence was, when it seems clear—certainly in the case of Bush and maybe in the case of Blair—that they had already made up their minds. They already had an agenda.

[Rory Stewart]

I am sure that much of that is true. I am not here to defend that decision—it was a terrible, catastrophic decision—but I think it is dangerous to put the whole blame simply on Blair and Bush, because the implication is that if we do not have Blair and Bush around, we will never get in these messes again. We will get in these messes again because we have not created the proper Government policy structures required to think these things through—not just to avoid the decision to invade, but above all to get out more rapidly once we have made a bad decision.

Military reforms—you have very kindly given me some time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not have enough to talk about this today—involve accepting that the military have too much power in the policy debate. That is not the military’s fault: they are filling a vacuum. The military feel that the Foreign Office is not taking the lead and that somebody needs to do something. I saw that all the time on the ground in Iraq. I remember a major-general saying to me, “The diplomats and aid workers aren’t doing anything, so we”—the military—“need to take those things over,” but that is not the military’s job. It is extremely dangerous, because its puts generals in positions where they make optimistic predictions about their capacity to sort things out, albeit without a detailed understanding of the politics or the reality of those aspects of governance or diplomacy.

We in Parliament need to look at ourselves—it is on this that we need to conclude. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was exactly right to ask us to look hard at how the Select Committee on Defence, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee got this wrong. What reforms have we introduced to those Committees to ensure that we do not get it wrong again? How do we as Members of Parliament operate in a very complicated world? It is not realistic for any of us in this Chamber to understand exactly what the difference is between Harakat-Dawa, Hizb-e-Dawa and Hizb-e-Dawa Islamiya. Everybody is learning desperately from briefs, trying to sound plausible, but there are 200 nations in the world. Ministers are busy. Politicians are busy; they are worrying about their constituents. They are not deep experts on these issues. We therefore need to create a system that we can rely on in the Foreign Office, the military and the intelligence services. We in Parliament need to know how to question those people, how to listen to them and how to promote people who disagree with us. We need in Parliament to learn how to look at which civil servants got it wrong and hold them accountable, rather than promoting, as we did, almost everybody who was implicated in the Iraq decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Meacher]

Yes—I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to say, in the spirit of honesty and frankness of this debate, that I am utterly ashamed of what I did on that occasion. It is the worst political mistake that I have made in my lifetime, but I want to say why I did it. I did it because I listened carefully to the then Prime Minister during those two crucial debates. He spoke with enormous assurance and authority, and I believed that, as Prime Minister of this country, he would have been presented with the fullest degree and comprehensiveness of UK intelligence, and he would use those data in a proper and honest manner to make the case. Perhaps I was naive to think that—I now believe that I was—but that is what I believed. I am speaking today because I am so angry at having been deceived. That experience has deeply damaged my trust in the role of Prime Ministers and in the link between intelligence and the various Departments of State and the Prime Minister, who speaks for the Government. I hope that that will be repaired in future, but the damage done has been considerable, certainly to me.

I was talking about the 45-minute claim referring to battlefield nuclear weapons. When the media took it up—the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) forcefully recalled the Evening Standard headline—that was not corrected, even though the authorities knew very well that the wrong impression was being given.

Thirdly, the claim that Iraq tried to buy 500 tonnes of yellowcake, which is required for nuclear fission, from Niger was included in the dossier, despite its having been confirmed by a visit by the former US ambassador to that country six months before that it was completely bogus. None the less, the claim was included.

The fourth point, which is very important but which has received little attention, is that the then Prime Minister of this country claimed to the House on 25 February 2003 that the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, in 1995 had revealed

“the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 123.]

However, as we now know, from a Newsweek exclusive just a few weeks later, what Hussein Kamel actually said during his debriefing was precisely the opposite. He said:

“All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tenor of his speech and for putting that fact more strongly in the public domain. To clarify: that piece of information was available in February 2003. The fact that it was covered up to such an extent—not even covered up, but completely contradicted—is one of the most shocking deceits in this whole process.

[Mr Meacher]

I entirely agree. That is precisely why I feel so let down by someone who was in the unique role of Prime Minister behaving in such a way. I do not expect any Prime Minister of any party ever to behave in that way.

As the Butler report points out so poignantly, all the ifs, buts, qualifications and caveats in the raw intelligence data were dropped from the dossier, while the positive allegations were distinctly overhyped. We all know that. Sources were treated as reliable when they were clearly not, and they were not checked against the expertise of intelligence staff. Anyone who has read appendix B of the Butler report, which was excellently put together, can see set out, step by step, how the massaging and accretion steadily accumulated until we were told in the final September dossier that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programme was—in words that have echoed for the past 10 years—“active, detailed and growing” and that the intelligence on which that judgment was based was “extensive, detailed and authoritative”. In fact, as we now know, Blair had been told just over a month previously, by the UK intelligence community, that

“we…know little about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988”.

The first great issue is accountability in relation to the Prime Minister’s own judgment, his deceitful presentation and his over-eagerness to take Britain into a war on grounds that far exceeded the evidence to justify them. One cannot take a country into a war under false pretences and then proclaim, as the Butler committee did, that no one can be held responsible.

Indeed the most striking characteristic of the Butler report is this disjunction between analysis and judgment. It is excellent on analysis and very poor, very cautious and very fearful about judgment. It catalogues a litany of failures and then pulls all its punches by declaring that, in effect, no one was to blame. I have to say that George Tenet was sacked as head of the CIA for intelligence failures over Iraq, but John Scarlett, who held the equivalent position in the UK and was equally responsible for the intelligence failures, is still recommended by the report for promotion, despite all the damning evidence in the report to the contrary. It is a very British establishment charade, when what is really needed is genuine accountability. I think everyone on all sides of the House is seeking that. But that the excuse is made that no one can be held to account and that it just somehow happened is completely unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I could do no better than echo the words of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about Iain Banks. He was a great writer and a great supporter of the Stop the War coalition, of which I am the current chair, and he gave enormous political, practical and financial support to the anti-war movement. We thank him for that, and for all the other great things he achieved during his life.

This debate falls 10 years on from that desperate, fateful time when this country went to war with Iraq. I remember the debate on that here as if it were yesterday. The Chamber was full. We were told there was an ever-present threat from weapons of mass destruction. We were told that there were nuclear weapons and yellowcake, and all the other canards were brought up throughout that debate, and at the same time there was a massive whipping operation going on all around the Chamber. I have to say that I was totally unaffected by that whipping operation—it seemed to pass me by completely—but I observed it going on in dark corners around this building.

It was a shameful day for Parliament, and it was a shameful day for the whole political system in this country. Outside in Parliament square, there were thousands of people. They thought, naively perhaps, that they would be listened to. Some 1 million and more had marched in central London—maybe 2 million were on the streets of London that day—and 600 demonstrations on every continent of the world, including Antarctica, had been held a month before, and the opinion polls all showed that there was no support for this war against Iraq. They thought that Parliament would reflect their views and their wishes.

The vote that day in which Parliament, sadly, endorsed going to war not only did enormous damage to Parliament, but did enormous damage and a disservice to a whole generation, because they had put their hopes in the political process to carry out their wishes and it did not do so. That engendered cynicism and we are still dealing today in many ways with the legacy of the war in this country. Let me deal first with the role of Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) was correct. Up until the Iraq war, taking this country to war at any time was completely a matter of the royal prerogative exercised by the Prime Minister. That royal prerogative remains in operation. A number of us, particularly my hon. Friend, argued strongly that we should have a vote in Parliament on the war—previously, only procedural votes had been possible. Eventually the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed that there could be vote, although I think it was a matter of self-interest on his part: he wanted to share the responsibility and the burden. We were pleased to have the opportunity to vote against the war, and I suspect he was pleased to have the opportunity to get a lot of MPs through the Lobby in support of his view.

Some people think that whipping, lobbying and pressure are the only things that matter in politics, but, quite honestly, we are sent here as representatives of our constituencies; we all have a conscience that we have to live with and decisions that we have to take. At the end of the day, an MP cannot blame anyone else; it is his or her own decision and vote, and the record will stand. I think our constituents understand that, but the very least we can do in recognition of what happened then is, first, in the immediate future, ensure that we have a vote before any arms are sent to Syria; and secondly, ensure that we have a proper war powers Act, so that Parliament must vote before British troops are deployed.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will give way to my friend, if I may call her that, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I congratulate her on her absolutely excellent speech and on securing the debate. As a fellow officer of the Stop the War coalition, I can hardly not give way to her.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful speech, as we knew he would. He spoke just now about the importance of having a vote before war. Does he agree with me that it should be a free vote—that we need to be voting from our conscience, not from the Whips’ list?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. On something so fundamental as the deployment of armed forces, a free vote is the right thing to do. Many have said it is easy to send other people’s sons and daughters off to die and then hide behind a veneer of party loyalty, but the issue is much bigger than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and useful debate. The honesty and frankness with which Members have taken part does credit to this place: it has shown the House at its best. I note with interest that no one spoke in defence of the UK’s support for the war. Over and over again, hon. Members emphasised the heavy price paid for the invasion, not only by people in this country, but crucially by people in Iraq, where sectarian violence continues to grow.

The debate focused on looking forward as well as back, and I want quickly to underline a few of today’s conclusions. Hon. Members expressed a lot of support for having free votes—and, crucially, votes based on information—when the House debates going to war. Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of basing our decisions on information. We also heard about the importance of reforming the relationship between the Foreign Office, the military and Parliament to ensure that it works better; about the need for structural changes to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Intelligence and Security Committees; and about the significance of Iran and Syria.

Many Members spoke about how the war undermined Parliament’s reputation. I hope that this debate has been a step towards reinvigorating confidence in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whose comments, as everyone said, were from the heart and delivered with a frankness that made us all listen. I would like to pay tribute to other colleagues, too. The anger with which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) spoke about the level of deception rang out across the House and, I hope, much wider. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke powerfully and with an expertise that not many of us in this place have about the importance of acknowledging when we get things wrong and of being able to say that we are failing. He warned of the dangers of thinking that we can only ever succeed.

I thank the Minister for loyally sitting through just about the whole debate, although I cannot thank him for the substance of his remarks, given that he was constrained, as he explained, by the convention preventing him from speaking before Chilcot reports. Waiting for Chilcot is like waiting for Godot. It would be helpful to have that report as soon as possible. The debate lacked a contribution from a Minister made with the same degree—or any degree, frankly—of honesty and frankness about what went wrong as other speeches. [Interruption.] I wanted to give credit to all my wonderful colleagues, but I am being told that my time is up. Is that correct, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You have had your two minutes, but I am allowing you to continue. I am sure you are coming to an end.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) made an important point about the conflict of interest of those on the Chilcot inquiry and about the importance of the Attorney-General’s advice being put in the public domain. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talked about the problem of a lack of planning post-Saddam. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) catalogued many of the deceptions and reminded us that the rules of the House prohibit us from reading out names of the dead.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) shared with us his interesting perspective as a serving officer and what it felt like to be in that position. He stressed that threat is a combination of intent and capacity, which needs to be borne in mind when trying to judge what constitutes a threat. I welcomed the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because he put it clearly on the record that there was very heavy whipping during the vote and that that day, 18 March, was a “horrible day”. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied that the whipping was all very nice, light and happy, but that was not the case.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) raised the crucial issue of depleted uranium, while the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly reminded us that Hans Blix pleaded for more time. He did not say it was a lost cause and that war was the only option—on the contrary. Finally, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) gave us some fascinating insights into the mind of the Prime Minister. Quite how he thought the invasion would help the middle east peace process is a question that will keep me thinking for the rest of the day and beyond.

I apologise to those I have not mentioned in my brief winding-up speech, which has already stretched your kind patience, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.

GCHQ

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the content of any leak or what has been argued in newspapers over the past few days, but we do have our own clear legal framework—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Human Rights Act 1998, all of which apply to data obtained by this country through co-operation with the US, just as they apply to any data we obtain ourselves. I think that people can be confident about that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that EU data protection laws currently offer no protection against backdoor US surveillance of this sort, will the Foreign Secretary commit to pushing for stronger measures in the current EU proposals, or does he agree with the Justice Secretary, who is reported to have said that plans to strengthen protections for UK citizens and businesses from such unwarranted spying are “mad”?

[Mr Hague]

I think that the hon. Lady might be quoting the Justice Secretary slightly out of context, in that he will have been referring to other aspects of the proposals. I cannot give her any guarantee that these controversies make it easier to agree proposals for EU directives, but I will go with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on these matters.

Syria

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right about the importance of extremist groups not getting their hands on chemical weapons stocks. That is one reason for strengthening more moderate groups in Syria, rather than letting the extremists gain greater strength, which is what is happening on the current trajectory. I will not follow him into all his historical analogies, but he will be well aware that Winston Churchill pretty much pursued the policy he was just talking about.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given the accelerating humanitarian crisis in Syria, the Foreign Secretary will know that Oxfam and other humanitarian organisations are warning not only of the importance of diplomacy, but about the amount of weapons going into the country. Will he give serious consideration to the fact that if the embargo is lifted and more weapons go in, it will be akin to pouring petrol on a fire?

[Mr Hague]

Of course I always take very seriously what is said by Oxfam and other NGOs. We will all have to weigh heavily all the different sides of the argument, but we must bear it in mind that, as things stand, people who have done nothing wrong—except to want dignity for their country and freedom for themselves—are being butchered. We must bear in mind what that does to their political opinions and whether that is acceptable, to us in the western world or to any part of the world. We will have to make our choice about that.

Shaker Aamer

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jane Ellison]

It is the clear and oft-stated policy of the British Government that Shaker Aamer should be released and returned to the UK. There has never been any equivocation, but I am sure the Minister will expand on that more fully.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On the question of “Why Saudi Arabia?”, will she comment on the increasing speculation that Mr Aamer is cleared for only that country precisely because it would prevent him from speaking out against his abuse—abuse in which it looks very likely that the UK authorities might have been complicit?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I know she is going to make her own contribution later. I have come around to the view that that is one of the only credible explanations, and I will talk about it later.

After 11 years, it is clear that the US does not have sufficient evidence against Shaker Aamer to bring charges, because if it did, it surely would have done so by now, as it has for many other detainees. We are left, therefore, with the fundamental questions: Why is Shaker Aamer still being held, and what are the conditions under which he may return to the UK? I put those questions directly to Brigadier General Mark Martins, chief prosecutor of the US office of military commissions in Guantanamo, when he came to the House of Commons last September, and to Leon Panetta, the outgoing US Secretary of Defence, when he visited the House in January. The official reason they both gave for Mr Aamer’s continued detention was that he was being held under

“the law of war…intended to prevent his return to the battlefield for the duration of hostilities in which he was previously engaged.”

That concerns me for many reasons. First, there is no credible evidence that Mr Aamer was ever engaged in “hostilities”. Secondly, the duration period described is incredibly vague. When he responds, will the Minister say whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an understanding of what that might mean? Does it mean for, for example, the duration of the US deployment to Afghanistan? Will it extend beyond the US troop draw-down from Afghanistan? That is important, because it might lead to an eventual release date.

In our country, even those convicted of very serious crimes know what sentence they must serve before they can be released, yet at this point Shaker Aamer has no such light at the end of the tunnel, even though other such difficult cases have been resolved. For example, the case of another British resident, Binyam Mohamed, who was often mentioned in the same breath as Mr Aamer, was also considered difficult and the US was initially reluctant to release him, but military charges against him were dropped and he was released to the UK in February 2009.

Although I have been encouraged on many occasions by Ministers’ repeated public declarations of official Government policy to return Mr Aamer to the UK, and by the frequency with which his case has been raised, Mr Aamer remains in Guantanamo. It is time, therefore, to explore other means of securing his release. That might, I suspect, involve increasing the pressure on the US Government, and pulling diplomatic levers that have not yet been considered. Diplomatically, how might the Government respond if another foreign Government were holding a British resident without charge? I know that Ministers have called for Mr Aamer’s release, but perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should go further and consider making a public declaration, condemning his continued detention.

The US is one of Britain’s oldest and firmest friends. We are close allies and significant trading partners. Even if Ministers have to ruffle some diplomatic feathers to see Mr Aamer released, our relationship with the US would endure. Indeed, as I have said, releasing Mr Aamer to the UK would surely help President Obama to take another step towards fulfilling his now five-year-old pledge to close Guantanamo Bay.

There are a number of theories about why Mr Aamer remains detained. In The Mail on Sunday last week, David Rose suggested that Mr Aamer might have been present during the torture of another detainee who, I understand, later gave false information that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Clive Stafford Smith and others believe that the UK security services could be briefing against Mr Aamer through intelligence-sharing channels to keep him detained, perhaps to protect their reputation against accusations of complicity in torture. Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought assurances that UK security services are not responsible for, or contributing to, Mr Aamer’s ongoing detention? I realise that the content of any such discussions cannot be shared, but have they even taken place?

Another route, which was discussed in detail with the Foreign Secretary and Mr Aamer’s lawyers when we met in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last year, is through the US’s National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The NDAA regulates defence spending, including on Guantanamo Bay, and also regulates how and when detainees can be transferred or released. Before 2012, granting certifications for transfers was made all but impossible because of the demanding obligations placed on the Secretary of State for Defence and others—the bar was set very high. However, since January 2012, the NDAA has included a new waiver mechanism, which allows the Secretary of State for Defence to release prisoners if any risk associated with their release has been “substantially mitigated”—that is the key phrase used. In October 2012, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the NDAA 2012 and its new waiver mechanism might make Mr Aamer’s release more likely, and he agreed to pursue the matter of securing a waiver with any new US Administration. Is the Minister able to comment on whether any progress towards identifying and addressing the obstacles has been made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has secured this debate today, for doing her utmost to represent Shaker and to press for his release. Many of my constituents in Brighton, Pavilion have been active in the campaign to bring Shaker home, and I want to pay tribute to them and to everybody who has kept the issue at the top of the agenda by standing opposite the House of Commons, come rain or shine, reminding people that this is a stain on all our reputations and that, until it is sorted out, we are not worthy of being called a democracy.

Shaker Aamer is the last British resident being held in Guantanamo Bay. He is a legal permanent resident of the UK and has a wife and four children living in London, all of whom are British citizens. He has never met his youngest son who was born on 14 February 2002—the day that he was transferred to Guantanamo. During his 11 years of detention, Shaker has been tortured by US agents by having his head repeatedly banged against a wall, and has witnessed the torture of another UK resident. He has spent more than 1,000 nights in a windowless isolation cell, and, when first detained, he was starved, kept awake for nine days in a row and chained into positions that made the slightest movement unbearable. Under those conditions, Shaker said he was delirious and confessed to whatever the Americans wanted just to make the torture stop.

Shaker has recently been subjected to a number of violent forced cell extractions, or FCEs, which have resulted in bruising and other injuries. Specifically, Shaker has been FCE-d while trying to pray and also in a manner that was excruciatingly painful as a result of a long-term back injury that he sustained during his treatment at Bagram air force base in Afghanistan.

Shaker has been subjected to sleep deprivation as a result of excessive noise made by the guards, but, as of the end of March, his official complaints have been ignored. In 2005, he was placed in isolation for 360 days for his role in organising a hunger strike after military police beat up a prisoner while he was praying. The prison rules permit isolation for only 30 days. Shaker has seen other prisoners treated in gratuitously violent ways, including being hospitalised and/or rendered unconscious as a result of FCEs. He also reports that a fellow prisoner has recently attempted suicide.

Shaker’s treatment and the existence of Guantanamo Bay is a clear reminder that some of the worst consequences of the war on terror remain with us today. It is worth repeating, because it remains so shocking, that Shaker has never been charged with any offence. The ongoing torture that is the hopelessness of indefinite detention has resulted in Shaker embarking on a desperate hunger strike that has lasted more than 70 days to date. Experts say that the possibility of death becomes an imminent risk after 40 days.

The impact of 11 years of detention and mistreatment and now this hunger strike has understandably taken its toll on Shaker’s health. Reprieve’s Clive Stafford Smith reported last year, after meeting Shaker, that his health is increasingly fragile; he has extreme kidney pain and serious asthma problems. There is a real chance that, unless he is released as a matter of urgency, Shaker will die in Guantanamo. That fact makes this debate more urgent than could possibly be imagined. Very rarely when we say that issues are a matter of life or death do we mean it quite so literally or quite so imminently as is the case this morning.

As hon. Members have heard, Shaker was officially cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo in June 2007 when a security assessment by the US Government acknowledged that it had no concrete evidence against him. He is also in possession of a US official document that states:

“On January 22 2009, the President of the United States ordered a new review of the status of each detainee in Guantanamo. As a result of that review you have been cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo…The US Government intends to transfer you as soon as possible…”

Shaker remains in detention despite that clearance, which is a complicated process involving multiple federal agencies, the fact that officials in the US Governments of both President Bush and President Obama have been aware for several years that there was never a case for him to answer, widespread international condemnation and a pledge by President Obama at the start of his term of office to close down Guantanamo. That is why we underline the question, “Why is Shaker still there?” That is the question to which I hope the Minister will supply some answers in his response.

Neither of the two clearances of 2007 or 2009 limited its application to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, no clearance has been geographically limited in that way in the past. However, according to Shaker’s lawyers, the US has told the Foreign Secretary that Shaker’s clearance is limited to release to Saudi Arabia. As the hon. Member for Battersea said, that makes no rational sense. Britain has the best record of all countries in taking prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Of the 14 people released to Britain, nine nationals and five residents, none has any involvement in extremism. By contrast, in Saudi Arabia, which has a vaunted rehabilitation programme, a larger number have committed subsequent acts.

That is what leads us to the uncomfortable conclusion that the only possible reason for sending Shaker to Saudi Arabia is to stop him speaking out about his abuse—abuse in which the UK authorities have been complicit. As was reported at the weekend in The Observer newspaper, Shaker is allegedly able to describe in detail how a UK intelligence agent was present while he was beaten. He also claims that a British operative was present while a US interrogator repeatedly smashed his head against a wall shortly before he was sent to Guantanamo. According to Shaker’s US lawyer, Britain’s intelligence agencies have also been defaming Shaker to the US, passing on false information and accusing him of extremism, which is also holding up his release. If he is right, Shaker is being deprived of his liberty on the basis of lies that he is unable to challenge, which is why he has begun defamation action against MI5 and MI6. Ironically, such action could be pushed into a secret court under the terms of the Justice and Security Bill, leaving him once again unable to confront his accusers or to challenge the evidence used by the Government against him.

The Metropolitan police has now opened three new investigations into UK intelligence collusion with torture and rendition, including Shaker Aamer’s case, and that is in addition to MI6’s role in the kidnapping of Libyan residents and their families in 2004 for which the Government have already paid out more than £2 million in compensation. Earlier this month, Scotland Yard detectives interviewed Shaker Aamer in Guantanamo, which is perhaps why the Government are so keen to force through their secret court hearings in national security cases through the Justice and Security Bill.

The US has repeatedly turned its back on international law, giving a green light to detention without trial and to the gross violations of human rights at Guantanamo and at prison facilities around the world. However, it is not enough to sit back and blame the US authorities when so many questions about the UK’s role remain unanswered, and when, despite welcome public statements from our Government about their commitment to securing his release, Shaker is still not free.

I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, including whether or not UK intelligence agencies have been passing false information to the US regarding Shaker, the result of which is his continued detention. Will the Government confirm whether such information that has been passed was marked “not for executive action”, by which I mean that it should not have been used for actions such as holding someone in prison, particularly in illegal indefinite detention such as at Guantanamo Bay? Have steps been taken to ensure that any information that was previously provided to the US should not be used against Shaker on pain of sanctions? What response has been given to each of the Government’s requests for Shaker’s return? Has the Secretary of State received letters that Shaker has sent to him directly, as he is concerned that they may not have cleared Guantanamo censorship? Have the Government raised with the US authorities any possible breach of international law by the Americans, and, critically, will the Minister assure us today that he can absolutely guarantee that we really can hold our heads high and say that the UK has not been complicit in the abuses that Shaker has suffered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Forgive me; that is one of the questions that I cannot answer in direct terms, because that forms part of the confidential discussions that we need to have with the United States in relation to this matter. A breach of its confidentiality in relation to it would damage the efforts that we are continuing to undertake in relation to Mr Aamer’s release. Although I fully understand the reason for asking the question, and the degree of frustration about my not being able to give a response, those are my reasons for not going into it. Plainly, there is an obvious difference of opinion.

[Caroline Lucas]

The debate is becoming increasingly Kafkaesque; it is like a nightmare. Can the Minister at least tell us whether he knows why the US will not release Mr Aamer? It is one thing not being able to tell us; but can he tell us whether he knows why? Can he indicate his assessment of what the US tells him?

[Alistair Burt]

In all fairness, we are getting into the same sort of area. I do not make light of this. Plainly, I have a supposition about why the United States might want to retain Mr Aamer. It is inconsequential in terms of the United Kingdom’s position on his release from detention, and whether we think the detention is wrong. We do. It is clear we have a difference of opinion with the United States in relation to this; but going into the detail of what we think and what they think is part of the confidential discussion we need to have on his behalf, in order to seek his release. Going into that detail here is not something I can do, understandable though it would be to Parliament, as it is an intelligence matter, which a previous Government would understand well, and would deal with in exactly the same terms.

Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We condemn settlement activity on occupied land, but we differed with the Palestinians over the past year when they would not re-enter negotiations without a halt to such activity. Of course one can understand the rationale behind them not doing so, but the result, since that is a precondition, is that such activity goes on but no negotiations take place. It would be better to get stuck into negotiations, even while settlement activity continues. That is the sort of precondition that I am talking about.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Foreign Secretary feel comfortable with the fact that what he is effectively suggesting is that a nation’s status at the UN should depend on its willingness to give up access to recognised mechanisms for implementing international law? How does that look consistent or fair?

[Mr Hague]

Because we want a negotiation to succeed. I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member has successfully contradicted what I have said several times. Across the House, we all recognise that this conflict will be resolved and peace will come to the middle east only if there is a successful negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I have heard no one offer any alternative. There is much desire to express opinions, make gestures and so on, but no one has contradicted that. If that is the case and a successful negotiation is required, that requires us to encourage both parties into that negotiation and for each side to do what will allow it to be successful. That is the simple logic.

Middle East

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is true, of course. We heard earlier about the need for balanced media reporting. Some of the recent media reporting has brought out what a terrifying experience the current situation is for people in southern Israel as well as for people in Gaza. It is important to understand that, and to direct ourselves to bringing this situation to an end.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that his repeated claim that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the current crisis is gravely misleading, as it completely ignores the five-year blockade Israel has put on Gaza, which the UN has called a policy of collective punishment? It is illegal under international law. What more will he do to put pressure on Israel to lift the blockade?

[Mr Hague]

I have already addressed the need to do that. I hope the hon. Lady heard that, but I also hope she is clear that if there had not been rocket fire—and an increase in rocket fire—in recent days and weeks, we would not now be debating this situation or the deaths of so many people on either side, so I think she should think again about who is misleading people about that.