As the Opposition tries Tuesday to force an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war, MPs from all sides have told Gordon Brown that he cannot delay indefinitely.
Although it appears unlikely that the Tories will win the House of Commons vote on the issue, Labour MPs have warned that the prime minister must take the initiative and announce a credible inquiry before he is forced to do so.
Last week, Brown stated that an inquiry will take place eventually, although the government maintains that this would be an unnecessary distraction while British troops remain in Iraq.
In recent weeks the government has played down expectations of a cut in troop numbers from 4,100 to about 2,500 ‘in the spring’, announced by Brown in October. With heavy fighting reported from Basra on Tuesday morning, a full withdrawal – and therefore the promised inquiry – could be a long way off.
Nonetheless, the Conservatives will use Tuesday’s opposition day debate to push for an immediate inquiry by privy councillors into the origins and conduct of the war, based on the Franks inquiry into the Falklands conflict.
It would draw on ‘senior military and diplomatic figures’ and, while it would publish its conclusions, it would take some evidence in secret. William Hague, shadow foreign secretary this morning used a series of interviews to appeal for the support of anti-war Labour MPs but made clear that he still backed the decision to invade Iraq.
While some Labour rebels will vote with the Tories, they are unlikely to do so in sufficient numbers to defeat the government. Many see it as a ‘tribal’ issue, particularly given the Tories’ support for the war. But some have made clear that they have concerns over the ability of the Tory model to get to the truth and would in different circumstances support a full public inquiry. They warn that Brown may soon reach a ‘tipping point’ where a vote for an inquiry will succeed and that he cannot expect to kick the issue into touch ‘until the last soldier is home’.
The Liberal Democrats, who last week tabled parliamentary bills to force an inquiry, will vote for the Tory proposal, although it does not go as far as they would like. They are also critical of the Tories ‘bizarre’ position and have tabled an amendment calling for Labour and Tory MPs who voted for war to apologise. Ed Davey MP, their foreign affairs spokesman, described the Tory position as ‘like Ronnie Biggs wanting an inquiry into the Great Train Robbery.’
Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who voted for the war, told the New Statesman last night that the case for a full independent inquiry was ‘compelling’. Although he will vote with the government today, he argues that it would be better for Brown to call an inquiry on his own initiative than lose control of the issue.
But he added, ‘Any inquiry will be a sham unless you have the same ground rules as in the US Congress, with witnesses on oath and prison as a possible sanction. Being on oath protects people who might otherwise be pressured not to tell the truth.’
Mackinlay was a member of the 2003 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) inquiry into the decision to go to war and remains on the Committee. Like Davey, he disputes the government’s reliance on four previous inquiries (the FAC, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Hutton and Butler reports). Although best known for his questioning of the late Dr. David Kelly, he was the only Labour member to oppose the FAC report that cleared the government misleading the country and parliament in the run-up to war. He complained at the time that the government had frustrated and obstructed the Committee.
Lynne Jones MP, a long-term opponent of the war, indicated that she would support an immediate inquiry if it was in public and ‘not packed with establishment figures’. She told the New Statesman ‘It would be worse to set up an inadequate enquiry than none at all as it would be used as an excuse to preclude a full public inquiry later.’
Last month the government was forced to publish the first draft of the September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, written by a government spin doctor. The ‘Williams draft’ revealed that claims that were presented in the published dossier as the ‘judgements’ of the Joint Intelligence Committee were originated by John Williams, press secretary at the Foreign Office.
None of the four previous inquiries made any reference to Williams’ involvement in drafting the dossier.
Content from our partners
Related
