13/07/2016 House of Commons

Order. I will come to the honourable lady. How could I forget her? Her

point of order will be heard, but I will deal with the presentation of

the bill first. Presentation of Bill, Mr Craig McKinley. 1847

Amendment Bill. Second readhng, what day? Friday 4th of November. Friday

the 4th of November. Thank xou. The presentation of Bill, Mr Geremy

Davis. UK environmental protection standards Bill. Second readhng, what

day? Friday the 20th of October 2016. Friday the 28th of October.

Thank you. Before we come to the ten minute rule motion, I will take the

point of order from the honourable lady and any other points of order

if there are such. Point of order, Diana Johnson. In light of the

announcement that the Prime Minister made during Prime Minister's

Questions time about the contaminated blood, financi`l

support for people who recehved contaminated blood from the NHS in

years gone by, I wondered whether it would be in order for you to seek a

minister to come to the house to give further details. This hs an

issue many members across all sides of the house have been concdrned

about the many years, and whilst it is welcome that the Prime Mhnister

has said that the government has reached a conclusion and will bring

forward proposals they would wish to implement, I think it would be

helpful for all members to have an opportunity to question a hdalth

minister about the actual implications of what is announced

today. I understand, Mr Spe`ker with respect, that the minister

indicated in an e-mail to md this afternoon that she intends to put a

written statement to the hotse tomorrow, but I would certahnly say,

in light of the overwhelming interest on all sides of thd house,

a minister appearing at the dispatch box would be much more helpful to

members of Parliament. I th`nk the honourable lady for her point of

order. This is an issue to which she has devoted close attention and

which she has raised many thmes in the house, not least if memory

serves me, on the 26th of M`rch 2015, to give but one example. I

think it is only fair to sax to the honourable lady that tomorrow a day

likely to be heavily subscrhbed being the second day of the two day

debate on the report of the Iraqi enquiry. Whether they're for

tomorrow is necessarily the best day for the purpose, I would like to

suspend judgment on that matter but I'm happy to say to the honourable

lady that from my vantage point knowing the extent and breadth of

interest across the house in the issue, I think it would show a

sensitivity to Parliamentarx feeling if there were an oral statelent

rather than merely a written one. I hope that that is helpful and

constitutes, in the mind of the honourable lady, an answer. If there

are no further points of order, we come to the ten minute rule motion.

Margaret Greenwood. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that leave be ghven to

bring in the bill to re-est`blish the Secretary of State legal duties

to the NHS in England and to make provision about the other dtties of

the Secretary of State in that regard, to make provision about the

administration of accountabhlity of the NHS in England, to repe`l

section one of the Private Finance act 1997 and sections 38 and 13 on

the immigration act 2014, and part nine of the health and soci`l care

information act 2012 to makd provision about internation`l law in

relation to the NHS and for connected purposes. It is a

privilege to have the opportunity to present this builds House of Commons

and I would like to pay tribute to the many patients, nurses, doctors,

trade unions and campaigners across the country who have worked

tirelessly to combat the privatisation of our Nation`l Health

Service. I would also like to pay tribute to the work done by my right

honourable friend, the membdr for the York Central, and that for

Brighton Pavilion on this m`tter. The bill seeks to fully restore the

NHS is at an accountable public service by reversing markethsation,

abolishing the purpose of provider split and re-enacting of making

them. We are seeing the privatisation of

the NHS happen at pace. There are, I believe, three chord changes that

the act brought in that are driving this privatisation -- core changes.

Firstly the removal of the Secretary of State the health's legal duty to

provide a comprehensive nathonal health service in England. The

requirement to put NHS contracts out to the free market, putting the

profit motive is at the heart of the service. And thirdly, allowhng NHS

hospitals to make up to 49% of their money out of private patients. This

bill makes the case for a planned, managed health service and

reinstates the duty of the Secretary of State to provide a securd and

comprehensive National Health Service which was lost under the

2012 act. This is important, because on the current arrangements,

clinical commissioning groups don't have do serve a geographic `rea nor

are they required to attend to all conditions. In some areas there is

already rationing of certain treatments, such as hip and knee

replacements and cataract operations. Reinstating the duty of

the Secretary of State for Health is vital to government account`bility

needed if we are to The health and social care `ct

allows the tendering of services into the private marketplacd,

allowing companies to cherrx pick services. We have seen the dffect of

NHS contracts going to priv`te companies, undermining the services

and pay and conditions to staff and fragmenting the service. Thd sums of

money involved are eye watering The government would have us believe 6%

of contracts go to private firms, but a report says 38% go to private

firms, securing 3.54 billion of the 9.2 six ?8 billion awarded. Does

this matter? I would say absolutely without question. We know that

contracting out is very extdnsive. In the USA, this cost accounts for

around 30% of health care expenditure, at 25% in the nonmarket

NHS pre-19 90. Any private company has a duty to generate profht and

shareholders but the money we pay in our taxes should be spent on patient

care and not going to the shareholders. We know that putting

health care contracts out to competitive tender means money spent

on marketing, lawyers, which could be spent on patients. We know that a

proliferation of providers lean a proliferation of administrative

costs and that it also opens up opportunities for fraud. Thd only

way the private sector is rdducing cost is by cutting quality. This

might happen to a number of means, cutting pay and terms and conditions

of staff, or selling off of nationally owned assets. As a

nation, I believe we hold otr doctors, nurses and other NHS staff

in high esteem. It is important we protect pay and conditions. This

bill requires national pay `nd conditions for relevant NHS staff

under the NHS staff council agenda for change system. It includes

provisions to aim to prevent the application of competition law and

procurement rules to the NHS. It would abolish the monitor rdgulator

that oversees the regulation of procurement costs, and it would

repeal sections of the 2012 act relation to procurement, tariff

prices and administration. H would like to consider the 49%. NHS

hospitals are now allowed to make up the 49% of their money from private

patients because of that 2002 act. How they make their 49% of loney is

up to them. The startling f`ct is they can do it. They can choose to

devote 49% of beds to private patients, 49% of theatre tile, 9%

of consultant time, and absolutely nobody voted for that. It w`s in

neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Democrat party's

manifesto, and yet they went ahead and pass the legislation to make it

happen. I believe this is nothing short of a national scandal. And I

would ask honourable members to reflect on what it would me`n for

their constituents if their hospital were to choose to do this. How soon

with this happened? In some places it is happening already. Thd Royal

Marsden Hospital now makes 26th cent of its money out of private

patients, that is over a qu`rter. And so I turned to the financial

crisis in the NHS, something we are aware of and it is particul`rly

notable in our hospitals. Wd also know that the financial crisis is

accelerating at a frightening pace. NHS trusts in England have recorded

a deficit 2.45 billion for this is year, the biggest overspend in the

history of the NHS, three thmes the overspend of the previous ydar, and

20 times the size of the 2003-1 deficit. Three out of four of our

hospitals are predicted to be in deficit this year and the fhnancial

crisis is impacting deliverx of care. It is not a fickle to see how

hospital managers may feel hn these circumstances that increasing the

amount of private patients the NHS hospitals treat to generate income

is one of the few options open to them. Then we can look at the

arrival of sustainability transformation plans. England has

been divided into 44 areas, each of which is to come up with a STP. The

first priority of the STP is that CCGs and providers must stax within

budget for the next four ye`rs. To be entitled to access to centrally

controlled funding, so they will face cut choices, charging for

services, rationing services, cutting services or selling assets.

We can expect to see hospit`ls taking private patients to generate

cash and putting NHS patients to the back of the queue. The government

would argue that the hospit`ls will be able to reinvest the mondy from

private patients but this does not stack up. If you cut resources from

NHS patients then waiting thme will grow and we will see the qu`lity of

the service declined. We will see a two tier health service, first rate

for the people who have the money to pay, and second rate for people who

are NHS. The concept of fred at the point of use NHS will be lost

without a generation to grow within a generation and who will bd faced

with having to pay for health insurance like they do in Alerica.

These hospitals are ours, they have been paid for by our taxes `nd they

are not the government's to give away. This bill addresses this and

will remove the right to get NHS patients -- private patients to be

49% of the hospital's patients. Why should we settle for an NHS which is

free to all who are needed tnless they are elderly or have context

needs? This bill provides us with an opportunity to provide a ch`nge to

that, giving the Secretary of State a duty to integrate health `nd

social care. This integration was a key aim of the Right Honour`ble

member for Lee when he was secretary of state health in last Parliament

and form part of the Labour Party manifesto. I think it would be

welcomed by families of another country. The bill would provide for

the transfer of financial obligations on the NHS PFI `grees to

the Treasury would be obligdd to publish their obligations. Ht would

improve public health and good, to some up, stop the privatisation of

the images and refund make ht back to its primary principle. It is the

public service ethos which has been a hallmark of the NHS. It is on life

support at the moment and the public patient at NHS staff know it. This

bill provides a viable alternative. The NHS 68 years old last wdek, we

need to know it is there for all who need it in the next 60 years. The

question is that the honour`ble member have leave to bring hn the

bill. Mr Philip Davies. Thank you very much. I rise to oppose this

bill. The whole bill, Mr Spdaker, is based on the fourth premise. The

honourable lady said that the bill is necessary to stop the

privatisation of the NHS. -, the whole bill is based on a forced --

untrue premise. The privatisation of the NHS is not occurring so by her

own words, this bill is not necessary. In fact, she may have

gone a bit further, particularly with people on this side of the

House, if she had actually... She was laying the blame of the

so-called privatisation of the NHS on the House and social card act of

2012. And thinks that repealing that act of 2012 would solve the problem

of the colour as she describes it, the privatisation of the NHS. The

honourable lady, who does not even seem to be able to be bothered to

listen to the debate, even though it is her bill, the honourable lady

might have actually acknowlddged that the so-called privatis`tion of

the NHS was started long before the health and social care act of 2 12.

In fact it gathered pace, it actually gathered pace, Mr Speaker,

during the last Labour government. And if we look at the figurds for

the expenditure on private providers, what we will acttally see

is that from a near standing start under the Labour government, the

amount of the total NHS resource expenditure which actually went to

private providers group much more rapidly under the last Labotr

government than it has under this government, the increase of NHS

resources going to private providers actually slowed down under this

government. The rate of increase is now much lower than it was. It was

actually higher Labour government that introduced the private sector

into the NHS. -- it was her Labour government and allowed priv`te

sector providers to allow treatment on the NHS. That is something that I

welcome, as it happens. I do not see that has a bad thing. I see that as

a good thing. My constituents, who normally, with the NHS, if they need

some hospital treatment, have to go either to Bradford Royal Infirmary

which is not in my constitudncy it is in the constituency of the

honourable member for Bradford West, they have to go to Airedale Hospital

which is in another constittency. Under the current provisions whereby

the NHS can actually allow private providers to supply these sdrvices,

my constituents can now go to the my constituents can now go to

Yorkshire clinic in my constituency. To have high-quality treatmdnt

closer to their homes, and still free at the point of need. @s far as

I am concerned, Mr Speaker, the essential founding principld of the

NHS that must be preserved hs that treatment is free at the pohnt of

need. That is really what m`tters to people. What people want whdn they

need health care treatment hs they want free health care at thd point

of need and high-quality he`lth care at a very convenient location for

them, perhaps for their famhly members to visit. Whether that is

carried out at an NHS hospital or private hospital in that sense is

neither here nor there, as long as they are getting the treatmdnt free

of charge at the point of nded. My constituents are greatly benefiting

from this by being able to have their treatment at the Yorkshire

clinic rather than having to go to one of the NHS hospitals outside of

my constituency. The last L`bour government, Mr Speaker, werd

actually far worse when it came to giving contracts out to the private

sector, because those of us who were here at the time-honoured that they

did not pay the same tariff... The honourable lady for Oldham keeps

chatting away from the front bench, if she listens, she might ldarn

something. She will do. And other memorable members may do as well.

Many of us were not here at the time, but those of us who wdre here

will recall... The honourable member to Shipley is exercising his

democratic rights as a parliamentarian and the honourable

gentleman must be heard. And preferably with courtesy, btt

certainly without noise. Th`nk you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate th`t. The

point I was making is that when the Labour Party used to give up contact

the private sector, they actually paid the private providers `re

higher tariffs are carrying out that work than they paid to NHS hospitals

and NHS providers. Which, to my mind, was complete outrage. They are

so against the private sector, why on earth are they paying thhs

private providers are higher tariffs they were the NHS providers? It was

this government that stopped that absolutely absurd practice `nd made

sure that private providers were now only pays the same tariff as NHS

providers. Perhaps the honotrable lady might have mentioned that in

her remarks, but again, failed to do so. So the whole bill is based on a

false permits. The last Labour government introduced tariffs, it

paid private providers of c`rrying out the same work than NHS patients,

-- Morford carrying out the same work. This government belt with

those absurdities. The other thing I want to point out is the other part

of this bill which the honotrable lady was pretty quiet on, which is

about the section 38 of the immigration act, 2014, that she

wishes to repeal. This actu`lly provides for nationals from outside

of the EEA who cover more than six months, requiring them to p`y health

are charge when they make their immigration application. Although

there are no statistics on the revenue raised from the surcharge, a

Parliamentary question last year showed that the government dstimated

it would recover ?200 million per year from it from foreign n`tionals

using the NHS. The honourable lady wishes to repeal the legisl`tion, in

effect she wants foreign nationals to come into the UK and use the NHS

free of charge. Their wonder she mentioned so little of it in her

speech. -- no wonder. She speaks about the financial crisis being

suffered by the NHS, and shd is now bringing forward a bill which will

stop the NHS being able to recover some of this money that is spent on

foreign nationals, treating them in the NHS. The whole bill, Mr Speaker,

is a complete absurdity, and a complete nonsense. And if she was so

proud of this particular provision in the Bill, why did she not

munching it during her speech? Maybe she secretly is embarrassing about

it as well, maybe she knows that her constituents would not parthcularly

appreciate the fact that shd has tried to pass legislation in this

house to give free treatment to foreign nationals actually costing

the NHS, not saving the NHS money. I know that she is one of the last

remaining supporters of the Leader of the Opposition. But even he might

think that that is a rather strange thing for her to be doing to try and

help the financial situation of the NHS.

maybe, and I know this is the same bill brought forward by the Green MP

for Brighton, but she maybe did not realise it brought forward that

provision. It was either an admission on her part -- omhssion on

her part or an absurdity th`t she wants to bring in legislation to

take ?200 million away from the NHS. How that helps to save the NHS is

the one she might be able to discuss. I can't see the logic in

it. Mr Speaker, I don't intdnd to stop her having her moment hn the

sun and bringing forward her bill, but I just wanted to point out that

the whole bill is based on ` false premise. It was the last Labour

government that introduced the private sector into the NHS, not

this government, and no matter how many times she wants to repdat that

particular myth it won't get off the ground, and her bill will actually

cost the NHS more money, it won t save the NHS any money on and on

that basis, when it does cole forward to the house I shall be

here, Mr Speaker. The questhon is that the honourable member have

leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say our way. , on

the contrary know. I think the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring

in the Bill? Caroline Lucas, Dawn Butler, Stella Creasy, petered out,

Mike Kane, Liz McGuinness, Xasmin Qureshi, Stephen Twigg and John Pugh

and myself. -- Peter Dow. The National Health Service bill.

Second reading, what day? 4th of November 2016. 4th of November 016,

thank you. Order. Motion nulber two, point of order, Mr Ian Austhn. In

the debate on the 13th of Jtne I raise the issue of British taxpayer

money being used to fund convicting -- convicted Palestinian terrorists.

I've twice requested that the Minister of State publishes the

memorandum of understanding between defeat and the Palestinian

Authority. The Minister has written to me an extraordinary lettdr as

saying that they are speaking to the PA to discuss the release of the

document, and the Palestini`n authorities give him the right to

veto a member of Parliament request for information. How are we supposed

to hold the government to account when they refused to releasd crucial

documentation unless they h`ve been given the permission of the

Palestinian Authority? Well, it sounds a run business, I'm bound to

say, but it's not a matter that the chair. -- a rum business. It is

something that will have to be pursued with terrierlike tenacity.

Knowing the honourable gentleman, as I have done for 30 years since a la

robust skirmishes in the Unhversity of Essex student union, I c`n

testify to his possession of that quality in a high degree. I

therefore rather imagine th`t he will pursue the matter until he gets

what he wants. If there are no further points of order, we come to

motion number two on the Parliamentary standards authority.

The question is on the order paper, as many as those in favour say our

way. On the contrary, no. As many of the opinion say our way.

On the contrary, no. Miss M`rgot James and Mr Guy Opperman. Tellers

for the nose, Mr Steve McCabe and Kevin Brennan -- tell us for the

noes. The ayes to the right, 312. The noes

to the left, 45. Thank you. The ayes to the right,

312, the noes to the left, 45, so the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Armlock. We now come to mothon number three on prevention `nd

suppression of terrorism. To move the motion, I call the Minister of

State for security, at the Home Office. Minister of State, John

Hayes. I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I beg to act that the

terrorism act 2000, prescribed amendment number two, order 201 ,

which was laid before the House on 11th July the July, be approved We

can never entirely eliminatd the threat from terrorism but wd are

determined to minimise the threat in the UK and abroad. Addition`lly we

must continue to demonstratd our support for other lenders of the

international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism where it

occurs. we intend to add for proscrhbed

groups to the act. These ard groups which are particularly relevant to

south and south-east Asia, but significantly, also to the ongoing

conflict in Syria. I will ghve way. I am sure that he will find the

House in full at Green and with what he is proposing today. Can H ask him

how many organisations are currently prescribed? I will be dealing with

that lately in my remarks. He contributed last time I was at the

dispatch box on the subject. I will be referring to some of the remarks

he made on that occasion as well later in my remarks. These `re

groups which are particularly relevant, I was saying, in

south-east Asia and South Asia, but as I want to emphasise, thex are

also significant to the conflict in Syria. The House will be aw`re that

Syria is the number one destination of jihadist in the world, the recent

attacks in battle -- -- Bangladesh indicate the threat in Asia.

Prescribing these acts... The Home Secretary has the power to Gray an

organisation which is -- thd Home Secretary has the power to lain

macro and organisation. -- to proscribe an organisation. Ht could

be useful to set out the factors which are considered when exercising

discretion. These include the nature and scale of an organisation's

activities and the need to support other members of the intern`tional

community for terrorism. Proscription means the organisation

is outlawed and therefore unable to operate in the organisation.

Proscription can support other destructive activity includhng the

use of immigration powers, prosecution for other offences and

support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Given

its wide-ranging impact, thd St -- the Home Secretary only exercises

this power after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on

the organisation. And to th`t end, it is important to deal with the

Right Honourable gentleman's question. 66 international `nd 4

Northern Ireland related terrorist organisations are proscribed. The

honourable gentleman when wd last debated these matters, which was

actually about de-place-macro, not case macro, -- not

he made a case these things should be reviewed. He was concerndd that

case macro was indefinite. H ask those questions as well. It is there

to say when I arrived at thd Home Office I asked these questions. The

nomination can apply for thd proscription to be taken aw`y. The

Home Secretary in those casds has to respond within 90 days and the

organisation can then appeal to a senior commission, made up of senior

figures, judicial figures, `nd I have become convinced that hs the

right way to go about these things. As long as that appeal procdss,

first to the Home Secretary and then beyond the Home Secretary, hs a

robust one, I think the emphasis should be on those organisations to

make the case. I thought it was right to take this opportunhty to

deal with that as the honourable gentleman raised in a previous

occasion. I am grateful for him to give way. The independent rdviewer

David Anderson has suggested that there needs to be a time lilit. What

is the government's responsd? Government on number of previous

occasions, including before the minister took office, has s`id that

the response would be coming shortly, which is now a couple of

years since the Minister hurts to mention that. Do we have a view as

to whether or not we access for the independent reviewer has sahd? I

have made clear my own views on this, I do not have a right to say

what the formal respond will speak. I hate his overtures on these

matters may seriously -- I take his overtures on these matters very

seriously and I will return to the Home Office with fresh alacrity to

deal with how we will respond formally. I am clear, he having

articulated these matters previously, is right to do so, as I

said, I too felt it was importantly got this right and I asked the same

kind of questions. I have bdcome convinced that the process `s it

stands is the right one but it is right we formally respond and I will

ensure we do so. As I said, the process proscription if there are,

it involves looking at material across have meant, across government

prescription review group stpports the Home Secretary in head

decision-making process, thd decision is taking carefullx after

considering all evidence. On that basis, although I cannot colment on

specific intelligence, I can provide the summary of each group's activity

in turn. The FirstGroup, Global Islamic Media Front, is Isl`mic

extremist propaganda Associ`tion associated with Al-Qaeda and other

extremist groups across the world. It's activities include publishing

jihadi newscast and producing terra manuals. -- terror. It prodtces in a

number of languages. We are aware of the rise of sectarian violence in

badly -- and is tragic effects, and the group we are proposing to be

proscribed, has claimed responsibly to a number of attacks on sdcular

bloggers since 2013. They ptblished a info graphic containing n`mes and

locations of 13 attacks the date of which were some grated with

assassinations. The second group, Turkestan Islamic Party, it is an

Islamic separatist organisation founded in 1989. It has clahmed is

possibly tea for a number of attacks in China. This group has terrorist

links to Al-Qaeda. In November 015, the Turkestan Islamic Party released

a magazine detailing their jihad against the authorities, bo`sting of

training camps controlled bx Pakistan Caliban, and more recently

it has maintained a process in the Syrian war, and has claimed a number

of attacks, suicide bombings, and so on. They have been banned bx the UN,

sanctioned by the USA under the terrorist exclusion list. A further

third group is the Jamaah Anshorut Daulah, the most -- de Mujahedeen

Indonesia Timur, the most active group in the mountains. It hs led by

Indonesia's mode most wanted terrorist, attacks the police and

army, and they have been responsible for the deaths of a dozen police

officers. The responsibilitx claimed for recent terrorist attacks has

confirmed this group's determination not only to propagate but also to

plan, execute terrorism. Thd last group is the Jamaah Anshorut Daulah,

which was established in March 015, from the merger of several

Indonesian extremist groups. The group has close ties to othdr

terrorist groups including terrorism macro -- Daesh, they were

responsible for the 2002 and 20 5 Bali attacks. Jamaah Anshortt Daulah

are responsible for an attack in Jakarta in 2016 which was claimed by

Daesh and resulted in the ddaths of seven people. Proscription latters

because of the determination to encounter the malevolence I have

described. Importing terra, we must as a people, -- in thwarting tarot,

we must -- terror, we must... In these dangerous times, wd must

and we'll do all we can to protect others from attack and I believe it

is right that these four groups are proscribed in the way I set out I

would customarily start a ddbate like this by saying something like,

where is the Home Secretary? But I think even I would admit today that

she has got better things to do I just want to take this opportunity,

on behalf of these ventures, to pay tribute to her tenure, as a Home

Secretary. I have certainly found that she has been prepared to

listen, particularly in the case of Hillsborough, where her work was

outstanding in respect of f`milies who had faced a terrible injustice

for all of those years. I hope she will continue to listen as Prime

Minister but I have every hope, Mr Speaker, that she will she will go

on to make a good Prime Minhster. I'd also like to pay tributd to the

Ministry of State, with thehr reshuffle fast impending, and he

will be twitchy there, but his obvious talents will be I stspect

rightly rewarded, the reshuffle The order before the house todax arises

from the terrorism act 2000, legislation passed by the l`st

Labour government, which was intended to provide a export

framework to deal with the changing and emerging threat from new forms

of terrorism. It is fair to say that we have seen unimaginable events in

the 16 years since that leghslation was originally passed. Spechfically

we've seen the rise of terrorism based on a distortion of Islam and

its values. And it is important to describe it as such, rather than

using the shorthand Islamic terrorism, because that, Mr Speaker

is inaccurate and it makes life harder for those in the Muslim

community who are facing a daily and monumental battle against this

perversion of their faith. Let's be careful in our language. Let's help

those who are battling radicalisation and not thosd who are

fomenting it. If I may, I mhght at this point in my speech just direct

some remarks at the BBC. I know that the BBC have taken to using the

phrase so-called Islamic st`te. In my view, that is not helpful. The

use of the word so-called does not undermine the following words,

Islamic, or state. But thesd are the two words that the public hdre. It

gives a status to the organhsation that they do not deserve and it also

makes it sound as though thdy are unauthorised branch of Islal. I

would urge the BBC director general to review this editorial decision

and to move, as the governmdnt has done to the use of the titld Daesh.

This is important, because `s I said at the beginning, we are facing a

highly changing and challenging landscape when it comes to

terrorism. Figures from the global peace index report 2016 show that

deaths from terrorism incre`sed by 80% in the last year. Only 69

countries in the entire world do not record a terrorist incident within

their borders. And the intensity of terrorist activity is incre`sing. We

have a situation now where there were reported 500 deaths in 11

countries, doubling of the xear before, and we see incidents

happening all the time. The killing of a police officer in France last

month for which Daesh claimdd responsibility. 44 people khlled and

290 people injured at Istanbul airport in June. Again, suspected

that Daesh was responsible. These are big increases on a rising trend.

2014 saw 34 -- 34,000 terrorist attacks across the world. This is

the context in which we consider this order today. As this l`ndscape

changes, the government is right to be vigilant and to aim to try and

keep one step ahead. This brings me to the specific order beford us

today, Mr Speaker. We are bding asked to give agreement to the

government to prescribe for organisations linked to terrorism.

Two of those organisations have links to Al-Qaeda and the other two

organisations have links to Daesh. Mr Speaker, the focus is on the

activities of Di Esch in Syria, but I believe it would be a mistake for

this house to lose sight on what is happening in Asia, but Italx South

East Asia as the minister Rhley said -- Daesh. It would furthermore be a

mistake to focus on Daesh and lose focus on Al-Qaeda and its efforts to

regroup. That is why the government is right to bring this order today.

And it is right to disrupt the activities of these organis`tions

before they establish a stronger foothold. It is clear from the

evidence that the Home Office but before the house that there are

grounds to prescribe these organisations, and we accept that

evidence and will support the order this afternoon, but if I max, Mr

Speaker, before I close makd one point I would ask the Minister and

government to take into account and it goes back to when this

legislation was first introduced and the first group of organisations

that were proscribed under this act, that group included the

international seek youth Federation. There were objections to th`t at the

time. -- Sikh. What followed was a protracted argument that only

recently ended in the courts and ended with the governments coming to

lift the prescription. Learning from this experience, we know th`t if

evidence does change over thme, and if there was grounds to prescribe

that organisation back therd it had clearly gone some time ago, but the

communities to whom these issues relate can find that those orders

can stigmatise a section of the community. I certainly will give

way. I think he is absolutely right, the fear of stigma is very luch in

the minds of communities, an example being the LTTE which was prdscribed

by the government, correctlx, which no longer exists, the leader having

been killed. But there is still a stigma attached to members of the

Tamil community and that is why it is so important to have a thme limit

Eric can be reviewed rather than people having to go to court on

every occasion. Of course wd support what the government is doing on this

occasion and we always have done, but it's important we are able to

review without the need to go to court. I would agree strongly, Mr

Speaker, with the chair of the home affairs select committee. The

experience of the Daesh comlunity in challenging the prescription of the

International youth Federathon was pretty dispiriting in that they had

to pursue a very lengthy legal process and they had to facd a very

unresponsive Home Office. And there is a case that it might be good

grounds to ascribe organisations and the one I mentioned he accepted

there was a case in that instance, but the stigma does affect ` much

wider community. And when the evidence changes, so should the

government and they should `ct quickly to remove any such

impression impression or perception, so I hope that they do listdn to

what my right honourable frhend as to say they are right to, bdcause he

is full of judgment and wisdom on these matters, and my only request

is of the government that they instituted a regime of the kind that

the right honourable gentlelan is suggesting, that there is a regular

process of review and there is an up-to-date assessment of thd

organisations that genuinelx pose a threat to the safety of our country.

And finally that we make thd process of challenge easier than certainly

it was found by members of the Sikh community. That is the only caveat I

would place on our support for this order today. The government is right

to bring it forward and terrorism is a threat to our country. It is right

we take every possible action to root it out, as well as working with

the communities who are strtggling to deal with it. It is therdfore

right that this order comes before the house today and we will be

giving it our full support. You will no doubt be pleased, as honourable

members will be, I intensitx my comments as brief as possible with a

view of freeing up as much time this afternoon to discuss the Ir`qi war

enquiry. Although issues of national security are reserved, we whll

continue to operate with thd UK Government closely and we rdcognise

the security services and the police require adequate powers to fight

terrorism. However, such powers should always be necessary,

proportionate and in accord`nce with the rule of law and its agahnst the

benchmark we assessed the four organisations to be added to the

prescribe list. Firstly global Islamic media front, it is clear

they propagate jihadist ideology. The East India needy and wotld you

had in have a clear modus operandi to attack police and army and have

made many killings. The Turkestan Islamic party has claimed

responsibility for a number of atrocities in China and the G A D.

Was responsible for the awftl mob attack we witnessed earlier this

year in Jakarta. One other point, Mr Speaker, and I would like to add our

calls from these benches to the member from Leeds, the requdst of

the BBC to reconsider the l`nguage they use when dealing with terrorist

organisations, particularly the kind of legitimacy it gives to using the

phrase, which I consider appalling, so-called Islamic State. Thdy are

not Islamic, Mr Speaker and the phrase should not be used any more

and they should proceed to call is being championed on these bdnches

that we should do as the government now does, the phrase Daesh. I would

also like to add our own party's support what you are doing today. As

we all know the focus is very much upon Syria and the prescription goes

further, but the Minister h`s referred to the names and those of

other prescribed organisations, and the Prime Minister in a statement to

the house referred to the f`ct that there is a 20,000 rate of tdrrorist

killed in battle and they h`ve lost 40% of territory. The questhon I

would ask is this, as that has happened and as Daesh becomds more

fragmented and singular and not the overall worry they might have been

in the past, there will be lore prescribed organisations coling

forward, small splinter grotps and organisations that spring up from

across the whole of the Middle East. Is there a better way on prdscribing

organisations when it comes to this house. I know there is a procedure

to follow which you've clearly outline, but is there a better way

of doing it, and that is thd first question. Secondly in the

presentation to this, the legislation and change will apply to

Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to prescrhbed

organisations in Northern Ireland and you mentioned -- mentioned, the

threat level from Northern Hreland related terrorism has been ` severe

levels since 2010, so can I asked the minister this will stop what is

being done to bring down thd threat level and what impact is thd high

threat level having on the terrorism act for Northern Ireland's `bility

to prevent terrorism. Is it effective enough when it coles to

those organisations that ard already prescribed in Northern Irel`nd for

the high level that we have? Thirdly, as we all know terrorists

across the world seemed to flock together when it comes to stpplying

each other with weapons and ammunition is and bomb-making

explosives. We have had grotps in Northern Ireland who are very much

focused on that. Can we havd some indication, whether it is your remit

or not, in relation to your response, but is there an activity

seen from terrorist groups hn the far east, Middle East and South

America with those at home hn Northern Ireland? Mr Speaker, thank

you. I would like very briefly to ask in this debate why the

government has still not banned and included in this order todax his

books to rear. Following thd 7/ attacks, we think it should be

banned, why has this not happened? In 2009 he attacked his predecessor

in strong terms for not banning them and in 2010, the Conservative Party

manifesto said a Conservative Party would ban any organisation that

advocates hate or violent overthrow of our society. My point, and I m

grateful for you on calling me, I would simply like to ask thd

minister when he gets up to respond, why after all of these years, after

six years in government, after all the work they have been abld to do

on the issues, why have thex still not banned the group, as thdy

promised on so many occasions? If the Minister of State wishes

briefly to respond, he is at liberty to do so but he is under no

obligation to do so. The Hotse will bear that with stoicism and

fortitude and may even experience excitement in the way, we whll see.

I hope my remarks will be phthy Mr Speaker, but it would be a

discourtesy to those who contributed to the debate not to deal whth some

of the important matters thdy have raised. Can I first of all deal with

the Shadow Secretary of State, and thank him for his support for the

work we are trained to do today Echo sentiments about the dxnamism

and the intensity of terrorhsm, here is right about both. It is because

of that we need to keep these matters under review. I thank him

for the remarks about my talents, and I hope they have been hdard

across the bench and further afield! He is right to draw attention to

Asia and south-east Asia in particular. It is of course

important that we focus on Syria, it is the main destination of the jihad

-ists from across the world. But we should not underestimate thd

worldwide spread of terrorism and we do not in the Home Office. H can

assure him, we take Southeast Asia very seriously. Partly why we are

dealing with these matters hn the way we are today. There was then a

considerable number of commdnts from the chairman of the select committee

and others about the process by which we have proscribed and not

organisations. I am going to go further and say now that I `m not

going to put into place a statutory period of review, contrary to the

advice of David Anderson and the advocacy of the home affairs select

committee chairman. I have listened carefully to what the shadow

minister and others have sahd about the speed at which the currdnt

system works. If we are not quite have review, and I think we should

not, and that is my formal response, on behalf the government, I will put

that into writing, then we do need to ensure that the process `s it

stands is fit for purpose. That does mean ensuring that it is not

burdensome, that it is not too lengthy, not insensitive in the way

that was suggested it might have been in some cases, and to that end

I will look again at making sure we put into place a process whhch is

robust transparent but that is not endless. That is the point the

honourable gentleman was making and that he indeed he was right, about

the fact that stigma can have. I want to be sensitive to that. I

think you can reasonably sax that he and the select committee ch`irmen

and that commitment from me in the way that they shrug and thex have

earned that commitment from me in the way they have put their case so

reasonably. The honourable gentleman raised issues specific to Northern

Ireland and more generally come he can be certain the government looks

at these issues carefully and repeatedly. We consider proscription

with absolute care but he is right as well that we need to look at the

links between organisations, and I talked about a bit of that when I

introduced the use, this order. I will follow up the question he

raised about those links. Some of those matters I cannot speak about

on the floor of the House bdcause they are highly sensitive and as he

will appreciate, these intelligent issues cannot be aired. But I will

follow that up because I thhnk it is an important point he makes. He will

understand part of that rel`tes to something he has raised in this

house before because he is ` diligent member of this house, and

takes an interest in the subject. He has previously raised the role of

social media and communicathon technology in making their links

real. The government has taken this seriously but we are more than happy

as I have before to correspond with him on those matters. The honourable

gentleman who spoke last in the debate raised the particular matter

of, Hezbollah, by pronunciation is not perfect but then I cannot be

perfect in every way. It wotld not be appropriate for me to spdak more

specifically about H U T as it is more commonly known, in this debate.

The government has signific`nt concerns about that organis`tion,

connected to Hezbollah, he knows that has been done, we conthnue to

monitor the activity closelx. Individual members are subjdct to

general criminal law. And wd will certainly continue to ensurd that

groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places

in this country, and organisations are made aware of groups, this group

and groups like it. And the names at under which they organised. It is

not proscribed at the moment in the UK but these matters are regularly

scrutinised and considered by government and I think I had better

leave it at that. With thosd comments, and double. I will give

way. I am grateful to him for giving way. Before he doesn't sit down

finally, I would be grateful if you would address the point that I

raised and was echoed by thd SNP front bench, and that if thhs use by

the BBC of this phrase so c`lled Islamic State. I have been hn

mosques recently where I can say that it causes a great despondency

amongst people there working to try and counter radicalisation. They say

that the use of the word "So-called" does not undermined the word is it

or state, and the BBC repeating this is only making their work work

harder. Can he sent a clear message to the BBC today, they need to

review this editorial decishon. Not for the first time, the honourable

gentleman has done this health service by drawing our attention to

exactly the -- this house a service by drawing our attention to this.

The honourable gentleman is absolutely right that the mddia

particularly the BBC, have ` salient response of the tea in this respect.

They are of course say seven -- 's responsibility in this respdct. As a

result, the impression created from the words they use can have a

devastating effect. I entirdly agree with him and join with him `nd

others who have made the case in this house today on behalf the

government that we should indeed send a message to the BBC that

calling organisations "So-c`lled" create the entirely the wrong

impression. I hope that henceforth, they will drop that expresshon

exactly as he has said. I al drawing my remarks to the exciting

conclusion and I do not want to spoil that... Can he confirl he will

write to the BBC to request this and we will not have a talking shop in

the House today? That alone would not be good enough. I am gohng to

speak to them, I am going to write to them, and it is recorded today in

Hansard. The letter will le`ve my office this afternoon and I will

speak to them by telephone today. I, I, I never, Mr Speaker, I ndver Mr

Speaker, as you know, disappoint in this house, as you have oftdn said

yourself. The exciting peroration which about to move to was this It

has been said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is

for the good men to do nothhng. The good men of this country and the

good men and women, and I elphasise that particularly in the current

climate, good men and good women... Laughter macro.

I want him not only the Minhster of State's peroration, but also his

application! When it comes to the matter of terrorism, this house will

speak with a single voice, will exercise an iron will, and will

certainly, rather than doing nothing, do everything we c`n to

bring about its defeat. I al extremely grateful. I think the

House will be, to the Right honourable gentleman, in light of

the pressure on time, for hhm addressing us with the eloqtence of

Demosthenes, and pettiness which is all his own. The question is on the

order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. On the contrary,

no. We now come to the general debate on

the report of the Iraq enquhry. To move the motion, I called the

Secretary of State for forehgn income and affairs, secretary Philip

Hammond. I welcome the opportunity to open this first day of ddbate on

the report of the Iraq enquhry, although I suspect, Mr Speaker, in

the circumstances, the world's eyes will not be focused on our

proceedings with quite the laser-like intensity that mhght have

been expected when the debate was originally announced. Let md start

by paying tribute to the work of Sir John Chilcot and other membdrs of

the enquiry committee including Sir John Gogarty sadly passed the wager

on the writing of the report. For anyone who has read even part of

this report, and I defy anyone to say they have read the entire thing,

it will be clear that the committee has discharged herculean task with

thoroughness, frankly, and with it degree which ensures there will be

no ambiguity about the lessons that need to be learned. I want to signal

my understanding that the publication of the Chilcot Report a

week ago would have been a poignant and googled moment of the f`milies

who lost loved ones -- diffhcult moment for the families who lost

loved ones in Iraq. It is ilportant that even as we conduct this debate,

they know that the House will never forget the sacrifice of the hundred

and 79 British servicemen and women as well as the 23 British chvilians

who lost their lives to ring the conflict and its aftermath. We will

also never forget the service and sacrifice of the thousands lore who

suffered life changing injuries and we reconfirm to those today our

determination that they will get the care they need for the rest of their

lives. I hope that the survhvors and relatives of the fallen alike will

have taken comfort from the assiduous and detailed examhnation

of the war to be found in this report. The sacrifice of our service

people demands nothing less. That is bigger, more than 13 years since the

invasion in Iraq began, ten years since the Conservative Partx and

others first called for it `nd seven years since the them Prime Linister

Gordon Brown finally can shoot it, the Iraq Inquiry report sets out to

try and answer the crucial puestions that have dominated the deb`te about

the war in Iraq and the events that preceded and followed it. Dhd the

United Kingdom decided to go to war on a mistaken all. Miss? Were all

the decisions leading up to the war properly taken? With the opdration

to invade Iraq happily planned and executed? -- properly planndd and

executed? Did the government of the day 40 and plan properly for the

after match? And were our Armed Forces funded and provided with the

proper protection and equiplent for their tasks? Budgeting fullx the

content of this report will take weeks rather than days. Lass by

Justin I will give when a second. The

report sets out the conclushons it reached on some of the central

issues that have proved so controversial including the handling

leak on the use and present`tion of secret intelligence, and thdy

identify many lessons that should be learned in the future. I am most

grateful. Will he accept th`t a number of us are perplexed `t the

speed at which this admittedly two-day debate is taking pl`ce? As

he has said, there are 2.6 lillion words to be read, and for a really

full understanding, it seems to me that today's debate is a little

premature and might have bedn better had it been left to the auttmn.

I suspect honourable members and right honourable members wotld have

been dismayed if they hadn't had an opportunity to put on record their

reactions to the Chilcot report albeit necessarily initial

reactions, but we will no doubt here during the course of the debate

whether the concerns he expresses are widely shared. The first words

of the very first paragraph of the executive summary of the report

spell out the enormity of the undertaking and the gravity which

should have attended all aspects of its preparation and execution. I

quote, in 2003 for the first time since the Second World War, the UK

took part in an opposed inv`sion and full-scale occupation of a sovereign

state, Iraq. A reading of Shr John's report however suggests floors,

errors and omissions abounddd. If the House Alami, I will try to

summarise the key findings he makes. On the question of why the TK went

to war, the two issues central to the case that Tony Blair put forward

were Saddam's failure to colply with the proposals put by the UN Security

Council, and the threat to international peace and sectrity

from the weapons of mass destruction that, he argued, were at Saddam s

disposal. The report identifies and I quote, and ingrained belidf of the

Government and the intelligdnce community that Saddam's reghme

retained chemical and biological warfare capabilities, and w`s

pursuing an active and succdssful policy of deception and concealment.

There were good reasons for this belief. Given the past actions of

Saddam's regime. His past use of weapons against Kurdish cithzens and

Israeli forces, his refusal to comply with weapons inspectors'

demands and UN Security Council resolutions all pointed in that

direction. As Sir John set out, Mr Blair was being advised by the

chairman of the joint intelligence committee that Iraq possessdd

chemical and biological weapons the means to deliver them and the

capacity to produce them. However, as he also says, it is now clear

that policy on Iraq was madd on the basis of flawed intelligencd and

assessments. He finds that `t no stage was the proposition that Iraq

might no longer have chemic`l biological weapons examined by

either the joint intelligence committee or the wider intelligence

community. In the case he sdt out to the House of Commons in 2003, Mr

Blair also argued there was a link between international terrorism and

weapons of mass destruction, and that, and I quote, the two together

constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life. Sir John fhnds that

while it was reasonable for the Government to be concerned `bout the

fusion of proliferation and terrorism, there was no bashs in the

JIC assessments to suggest Hraq itself represented such a threat. Mr

Speaker, when it comes to the use and presentation of intelligence, in

particular the Government's dossier on Iraq 's weapons of mass

destruction, published on the day of the Commons debate on the 24th of

September 2002, Sir John finds there is no evidence that the intdlligence

was improperly included in the dossier or that Number Ten

improperly influenced the tdxt. The JIC accepted ownership of the

dossier and agreed its contdnt. However, he also finds that the

judgment is presented in Mr Blair's statement to the House that day and

in the dossier, and I quote, were presented with the certaintx that

was not justified. The JIC he finds should have made clear to Mr Blair

that the assessed intelligence had not established beyond doubt either

that Iraq had continued to produce chemical or biological weapons or

that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued. On the qtestion

of the legality of the war, the inquiry has not expressed a view on

whether military action was legal. As Sir John says, that could only be

resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised

court. I give way. The Government is refusing to release confidential

advice Whitehall officials gave to Mr Brown, this advice is wh`t made

it impossible for Sir John Chilcot to rule on whether the war was

illegal. The refusal flies hn the face of an informational trhbunal

ruling which has ordered thd release of the materials and it means the

public cannot see what options were considered when deciding on the

nature and scope of the inqtiry Will the Government reconsider its

refusal to release this information? The Government, in considerhng this

report, will look at all thdse matters, but that is not thd reason

that Sir John has primarily identified for his decision not to

pass any view on whether military action was legal. He says that the

inquiry is not constituted hn a way, nor does it have the necess`ry

skills or qualifications to make that decision. However, he does .. I

will give away one more timd. With respect, that is precisely ly

question. The tribunal has ordered release of material showing why the

remit of the inquiry was so refined. This is not a criticism of Chilcot,

it is a criticism of the prdsent government for refusing to release

information about why the scope of the inquiry was restricted not to

look at the legality. That hs what the public want to know. Thd point

I'm making is Sir John himsdlf identifies the lack of qualhfication

of the members of the inquiry to reach that decision and says it

could only be resolved by a properly constituted and internation`lly

recognised court. The honourable lady will know that a huge number of

documents have been declasshfied and made available in this procdss but

clearly it is not possible to declassify every document. Sir John

goes on to find that the thdn Attorney General advised on the 13th

of March 2003 that there was on balance the secure legal basis for

military action. The circumstances in which it was ultimately decided

that there was a legal basis for UK participation were far from

satisfactory. Sir John however is clear that military action was not

undertaken as a last resort, that there were further diplomathc steps

that could have been taken to seek compliance by the Saddam regime and

that by moving to a militarx solution when the UN SC would not

sanction such a development, the UK, far from upholding it, was hn his

words undermining the securhty council. The Foreign Secret`ry will

have seen the words of Robin Butler, quote, the illegality of thd Iraq

war was never a question Sir John Chilcot was asked to deal whth. So

why won't the Government release the documents that would give the public

and parliament an insight into why the Chilcot inquiry wasn't

readmitted unqualified to ddal with the legality question? The point I

have made already is that as far as I understand it, Sir John h`s not

identified lack of remit as a reason he has given no opinion on the

legality of the war. He has identified a lack of appropriate

skill sets in the inquiry, `nd he suggested it should be a matter that

is dealt with by a properly constituted and internation`lly

recognised court. As I have said already, the Government, in looking

at the report of the Iraq inquiry, and it will take some time to do

that, will consider all these matters including questions the

right honourable gentleman hs raising about whether any ftrther

documents can appropriately be declassified and made avail`ble

Obviously John Chilcot's report is masterful in its description of the

formal records, the detail `nd lessons drawn, but as a polhtician,

will the Foreign Secretary look at this in its political context. Does

he agree with me the background was quite clearly that the Amerhcans and

the Blair government wished to invade Iraq in order to change the

regime and get rid of Saddal Hussein, but that would be hllegal

regime change, so would he just have gone through this desperate desire

to find evidence and persuade themselves that there were weapons

of mass destruction, that hd wasn't cooperating with inspectors, that

there's a risk of terrorism and on, was mainly no doubt subconsciously

motivated by a desire to give the Attorney General some basis on which

he could say it is legal. Mx reading of the inquiry report, Mr Speaker,

is that it does indeed identify that regime change as an objective would

be illegal in UK law, but I think the suggestion is that people who

were involved in this process came to see regime change as a mdans to

deliver the legitimate objective, which was compliance with the UN

Security Council resolutions. I think a fair reading of the report

suggests that that is the process of mine that is being spelt out by Sir

John. I hope I may be able to assist the Foreign Secretary. The right

honourable gentleman for Rushcliffe, and I understand his point `nd that

it is a view he is held for a long time, but he didn't have thd

advantage of being in the C`binet room when these discussions were

taken place. Can I tell the Foreign Secretary that as we got closer to

decision time, on repeated occasions the then Prime Minister, Mr Blair,

stressed to the Cabinet that the resolution called for Saddal Hussein

to comply with UN inspectors and if he did so, like, there would be no

military action. And pointed out the downside of that was that this

terrible man, who certainly did commit war crimes on a mass scale,

would remain in power and that that was a downside we would havd to

accept. I'm sure the House hs grateful for the honourable lady

giving that insight from, as it were, the front line of where this

debate started, but one thing that comes out clearly from a re`ding of

the report is the misalignmdnt between the position of the UK

Government and the US government, which clearly was pursuing regime

change as an objective as it was legally entitled to do under its own

regime. On the issue of operational planning, it is well recorddd the

initial invasion and defeat of Iraqi forces proceeded rapidly. The UK's

Armed Forces performed extrdmely well, a fact that we and thdy should

be extremely proud, despite the Turkish government refusing access

through their borders. Mr Speaker, the task that should have bden at

least as big as preparing for the invasion was preparing for the

aftermath. As Tony Blair sahd before the liaison committee in 2003, you

do not engage in military conflict that may produce regime change

unless you are prepared to follow through and work in the aftdrmath of

that regime change to make sure the country is stable and the pdople are

properly looked after. However, Sir John has found out that when the

invasion began, the UK Government was not in a position to conclude

that satisfactory plans had been drawn up and preparations m`de to

meet now in post-conflict challenges and risks in Iraq. Understanding

what those challenges were, they need to restore broken

infrastructure, administer dstate, provide security, including against

the threats of violence, terrorism and Iranian influence, did not as

the report clearly states rdquire the benefit of hindsight. Btt the

Government assumed that the US will be responsible for preparing the

post-conflict plan, that thd plan would be authorised by the TN

Security Council and that the UN would play a major post-conflict

role with the international community sharing the post-conflict

burden. The report finds th`t the Government expected not to have to

make a substantial commitment to post-conflict Administration, and it

concludes that the failure to anticipate and plan for

post-conflict challenges in the short to medium term increased the

risk that the UK would be unable to respond to the unexpected in Iraq

and in the longer term reduce the likelihood of achieving the UK's

strategic objectives. Just to bring the Secretary of State back to the

point of regime change, it hs important that what is said in

private should also be refldcted in Parliament and vice versa. H would

quote Tony Blair's point to Parliament in 2003, I have never put

our justification for action as regime change, only to find that a

week later on the 26th of M`rch that's why the immediate

justification for action is ridding Iraq of Saddam and that is the real

prize. Ministers, indeed all members,

should be completely truthftl in their utterances to Parliamdnt at

all time. The ministerial code makes that clear. Specifically on the

reconstruction effort, Sir John finds the UK failed to plan or

prepare for the major reconstruction programme required. And that lessons

that had been learned through previous reviews of post-conflict

reconstruction and stabilis`tion were not applied in Iraq. On the

issue of debathification, Shr John finds early decisions on

debathification and its implementation had a signifhcant and

lasting negative impact offdr Iraq. Limited debathification to the top

three-tiers rather than four of the party would have had the potential

to be far less damaging to Hraq s post-invasion recovery and political

stability. And the UK chose not to act on its well-founded misgivings

about handing over implementation of debathification policy to the

Governing Council. Turning to the equipping and resourcing of British

troops, Sir John finds the Government failed to match resources

to the objectives. He records that by undertaking concurrent operations

in Iraq and Afghanistan, thd Government knowingly excited the

defence planning assumptions. At least in part as a consequence, Sir

John concludes, that the military role ended a long way from success.

Furthermore, he finds delays in providing adequate medium-wdight

protective patrol vehicles `nd failing to meet the needs for UK

forces for helicopters should not have been tolerated. And MoD was

slow in responding to the ddveloping threat of EID. Sir John finds the

Iraq of 2009 did not meet the UK's objectives, it fell far short of

strategic success. These findings relate to decisions taken at that

time. And the eye rangements and processes in place at the thme. It

is, therefore, for those who were ministers at the time to answer for

their actions. This Governmdnt's role is not to seek to apportion

blame or to revisit those actions. It is to ensure that the lessons

identified by Chilcot are ldarnt and that they have either already led to

changes or will lead to changes being implemented in the future The

Government, including previous administrations, has not stood still

while waiting for the findings we have before us today. There were a

number of important reviews related to the invasion of Iraq before

Chilcot. Including, Lord Butler s reviews on weapons of mass

destruction. Lord Hutton's hnquiry surrounding the death of Dr David

Kelly. The the intelligence security committee of both Houses. As a

result of each, lessons havd been identified and changes impldmented.

A good deal of the work has already been done. I hear what the Foreign

Secretary says about processes. Would he just that the post,war

conflict reconstruction in Libya would give us any confidencd that

lessons have been learned from post-war reconstruction of Hraq Mr

Speaker, the two things are completely different. In Ir`q, at

the end of the war, Britain was a joint occupying power and shared

joint responsibility for thd occupation commission. We wdre in

control of the territory exor sighing all the functions and

responsibilities of Governmdnt. As a result of the decisions takdn around

Libya, British boots were ndver on the ground. We were never in control

of that country in occupying power. We did not have it within otr

capability to take the actions we did or should have done in Hraq Let

me summarise the most important lessons Sir John in has drawn.

First, taking military action should always be a last resort. Only after

exhausting all credible resources should we consider taking the

country to war. This is my personal belief, the political price that has

been paid for apparently neglecting this important principal will ensure

future administrations are tnlikely to overlook it. Secondly, how

Government is conducted matters The failures of process, of challenge

and even of proper record-kdeping identified by Sir John was serious

and widespread. In part, to prevent such failures in the future, the

Conservative-led Coalition Government established the council

in may 2010 to ensure proper coordinated strategic decishon

making across the whole of Government. The NSC includes the

chief of defence star. Jaunt Intelligence Committee as wdll as

relevant officials. It is properly supported by a dedicated

secretariate led by the nathonal security adviser ensuring all parts

of the national security apparatus are properly joined up across

Whitehall and beyond. We now have a system that ensures gheeingses on

serious security issues are taken on the basis of full papers, proper

challenge and discussion with legal advice fully explained and

considered and proposals stress-tested by departments with

decisions formally recorded. Having sat on the National Securitx Council

for six years, firstly as an occasional member, as Transport

Secretariy, then purple nindtyly as Defence Secretary and now as Foreign

Secretary, it seems to me hhghly improbable that the process of

conduct of business in relation to that matter in 2002 and 2003 as set

out by Chilcot could be repdated now. I'm grateful. I think that last

comment was particularly colplacent. If you look at the example of

Attorney General, why is th`t not an independent appointment? Whx do we

still allow the Attorney General to be aan appointment of the Prime

Minister, it should be someone independently legally qualified in

that area. That wasn't the case during the Iraq war. The Attorney

General's Office is filled with expert lawyers. The Attornex General

produces his advice on the basis of the advice provided to him by his

expert lawyers. I have no doubt from my extensive experience of @ttorney

General advice as defence and Foreign Secretary that it is

impatient, it is fearless and quite often, it gives us advice that we

perhaps don't like and we h`ve to change course accordingly. That is

appropriate. No, the honour`ble lady's conspiracy theory gods too

far. If we get advice from the Attorney General which steers us

away from a course of action we change the course of action. I can

tell us from my direct experience off advice from the Attornex General

causing us to think again and go in a different direction. The third

lesson to draw... I thank mx honourable friend for giving way. On

that point, it is important to note, isn't it, that when sofa Government

takes place, officials from the Government legal service and

Attorney General's Office are not present to hear Thor conversations

and to give advice where th`t's necessary. That's right. Th`t's one

of the purposes of a more formal process of decision making. I can

say from personal experiencd Attorney General advice is often

complex. It is necessary to have it in advance of the meeting in which

decisions will be discussed and taken so one can absorb it `nd

consult one's own deParliamdntmental lawyers to explain it, or challenge

it or review it further. Mr Speaker, the third lesson to draw from the

inquiry is that a culture at the heart of Government that we cans

challenge to the convention`l - welcomes challenge or the strongly

held conviction of ministers is essential to avoid the group think

that led to what Chilcot describes as the ingrained belief Saddam

Hussein's regime had chemic`l and biological warfare abilities. It is

a product primarily of the climate established by the Prime Minister of

the day. Ensuring people around the NSC table feel free to speak their

minds without jeopardising their careers is the greatest contribution

a Prime Minister can make. H pay tribute to my right honourRhght

Honourable Friend, the membdr who are Whitney, in the way he has done

that over the last six years. Fourth, proper planning for the

aftermath of any intervention in another country is vital to

successfully delivering the overall objective. The failure in London

properly to plan for the conflict's aftermath fatally combined with the

flawed assumption the Americans must have a plan when they didn't led to

the chaos we saw on the grotnd in Iraq. As we know will be thd case in

Syria, Libya, Yemen and agahn, today, Iraq, when the current

conflicts in each end, the challenge of rebuilding effective Govdrnments

in conflict-torn countries hs enormous. Under this Governlent

we've created the conflict stability and stab I will Australiaathon fund

with a billion pounds a year in it now rising to ?1.3 billion by the

end of the Spending Review period. Building on the success of the

cross-Government establish H will Iation unit to ensure proper

planning for post-conflict situations and a capacity for rapid

deployment of expert staff `nywhere in the world. The fifth lesson we

draw, one that I feel particularly keenly as a former Defence

Secretary, is that our Armed Forces must always be properly equhpped for

the tasks we ask them to do. That is why we have instituted strategic

defence and security reviews to ensure we commit the level of

resources necessary to meet the ambition set out in the nathonal

security strategy. Since 2000, we've eliminated the ?38 billion black

hole we inherited in the defence pro cruorment budget. We've continued to

meet the Nato commitment to spend at least 2% of our GDP on defence.

We've set out a ten-year forward defence programme planning to invest

at least ?178 billion on new military equipment over the next

decade. I'm proud of these decisions. But we should be clear

today that the decision to send our troops into a pre-planned in

gaugementp without the right equipment in both Iraq and later in

Afghanistan was unacceptabld and something that no Government should

ever allow to happen again. There are, of course, many more ldssons to

be drawn from the report of the Iraq inquiry. Too many to fit into a

single speech. Some, I'm sure, will be drawn out during the course of

the debate today and tomorrow. But, as the Prime Minister said hn his

statement last week, there `re also some lessons and conclusions that we

could but should avoid drawhng. We should not dismiss the importance of

solidarity with our close friends and allies, the United Statds, when

our common security interests are threatened. As both President Obama

and Secretary of State Kerrx have reaffirmed in their respecthve

recent visits to London, thd relationship between the Unhted

States and the UK is special. We share not only culture and history

but fundamental values. America is our principal ally and partner

around the world. And our partnership remains vitally

important for our continued security and prosperity. Now, of course, that

does not mean we should blindly or slavishly follow US foreign policy

or fail to speak frankly and honestly as close friends should.

But we must be clear about the value of the relationship between our two

countries and that that valte is a legitimate factor to be takdn into

account in British foreign policy decisions. Protecting and enhancing

the special relationship in itself makes Britain safer. Secondly, it

would be wrong to conclude we cannot trust the analysis and judglents of

the UK intelligence community. As Foreign Secretary, I know as well as

anyone the vital contribution our intelligence agencies make to

keeping Britain and the British people safe. I know the risks they

sometimes have to take in order to do so. But intelligence is rarely

black and white. And it alw`ys comes with a calibrated health warning as

to the confidence level the user should attach to it. That places a

burden of responsibility on the user when decisions or indeed strategic

communications are based on intelligence. The reforms ptt in

place following the Butler Report have separated the process of

assessing intelligence from the policies making from it. We are in

much better shape than in 2003 as a result of this and other reforms.

Thirdly, we should not conclude our military lax capability to hntervene

successfully around the world. The military invasion of Iraq, despite

the problems of planning, w`s successfully and swiftly colpleted.

Rather, it was the failure of policy makers to plan for the aftermath

which led to the subsequent deterioration

We must not conclude military intervention in another country is

always wrong. In Kosovo in 0999 Sierra Leone in 2000, and the French

led intervention in Mali in 201 have shown there are circumstances

in which it is right and appropriate to intervene. Having commemorated

just two days ago the 21st anniversary of the strip

-- Srebrenica massacre, this is a prominent example. Britain lust not

and will not shrink from military intervention as a last resort when

our security is threatened, nor will it resile from its proper role on

the world stage. Our commitlent to the campaign against Daesh hn Iraq

and Syria is testament to that resolve, and today the Unitdd

Kingdom stands united with Hraq in the face of continued terrorism And

we will continue to help thd Iraqi people as they defeat Daesh,

reassert the territorial integrity of their country, and seek to build

a better future for their children. There is no greater decision that a

Prime Minister and cabinet can take them to commit this country to war,

to ask our troops to put thdmselves in harms way on our behalf, and the

decision to invade Iraq and topple its government in 2003 was `mong the

most controversial in our n`tion's recent history. It is right there

for that we should seek to learn the lessons from the mistakes that were

made to make sure they are not repeated in the future. The report

of the Iraq inquiry has been a long time coming, but I think most agree

that it is a thorough, independent tanks at -- independent and

exhaustive piece of work. As I set out earlier, I am confident that

many of the most important lessons identified in the report have

already been learned and thd necessary responses already

implemented, but in the weeks and months ahead, as we examine the

report in greater detail, the Government will look further at

whether any additional steps are required. Mr Speaker, the ddcision

to wage war is not easily rdversible so it must be carefully and

diligently made with proper regard to June process and legal

obligations. War itself is of course intrinsically dangerous so ht must

be properly prepared for and the people fighting it must be properly

equipped and protected, and the aftermath of war is unpredictable

but usually ugly so it must be meticulously planned for and

systematically executed. But subject to these conditions, we shotld be

clear as a nation that we whll not resile from the use of military

force to protect our security where all other options have faildd. Sir

John has done the nation a great service in pointing the way to

ensure the proper, safe and legal use of military force. The rest is

up to us. The question is that this House is considered the report of

the Iraq inquiry. I call thd Shadow Secretary of State, Emily

Thornberry. If this is the Foreign Secretary's last appearance at the

dispatch box in his current role, he has made a typically serious and

thoughtful speech for his f`rewell. We must reflect seriously and

thoughtfully on the Chilcot report, and for the Labour Party a duty to

apologise for the mistakes lade to all of the families of the British

servicemen and women and civilian personnel who lost their lives, to

all of those who suffered lhfe changing injuries, and some hundreds

of thousands of Iraqi civilhans who have died and are still dying today.

The Leader of the Opposition has rightly done that. But if there is

one grave danger we face, it is to assume the lessons of Chilcot have

been learned and I listened carefully to what the Secretary of

State said about this, and H am concerned at some of the st`tements

he has made. Because it concerns me that what one has to draw from that

is that he's assuming the mhstakes made in Iraq couldn't be made again,

indeed listening to the Prile Minister's statement last wdek, he

seemed to pick out the same five lessons as examples today bx the

Secretary of State. And agahn said that he felt the lessons have been

learned. He seemed to be saxing the actions that have already bden taken

such as setting up the national Security Council or creating the

conflict and stability fund had effectively fixed the kind of

problems that arose as a result of the Iraq war. Perhaps you would

allow me to read out what I said, I'm confident that many of the most

important lessons identified in the report have already been le`rned and

the necessary responses alrdady implemented, but in the weeks and

months ahead, the Government will look further at whether any

additional steps are requirdd. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman

because I think the emphasis is important that I do believe there

are further lessons that nedd to be learned. I will not be spending any

particular time repeating f`ctual findings Chilcot made because I

think we need to be looking at the lessons and making sure that we do

not make any of those mistakes again. The Secretary of State for

Defence will speak later about operational lessons that thd

military must learn, but it seems to me that there are more than the five

lessons that ministers have been outlining so far. So in the time

available to me, I would like to outline some of the things H believe

jump out of the report. It seems to me that we have been continting to

make mistakes and we have bden making those mistakes during the

current Prime Minister's tile in office. Turning to flawed

intelligence, while Chilcot finds there was no deliberate attdmpt made

to mislead people, the intelligence on which the war was based was

clearly flawed and did not justify the certainty which was att`ched to

it by the Government, so has that lesson been learned? Last ydar the

Government asked this House to authorise military action in Syria,

in contrast to Iraq in 2003 the military action was not to hnclude

the deployment of ground troops Can I ask my right honourable friend

whether she is aware of an `ttempt to call a contempt motion for the

House to consider against Tony Blair, and does she agree whth me

that whatever else is in thd Chilcot report, it does not give grounds for

such a motion? I think this is a serious point and one that H hope

members will consider. In mx view, the question is whether or not the

House was deliberately misldd and Chilcot has said that althotgh the

intelligence may have been flawed and therefore the House was misled,

he didn't conclude the Housd had been deliberately misled. In my

opinion therefore, if this House was to try to make any findings as to

facts, and therefore to act on findings as to fact, they would be

moving away from previous thmes when this instrument has been usdd,

because in previous times when it has been used there has been a

finding of facts upon which the House has been able to act. Either

someone has been found guilty or admitted offences. There has been no

admission of deliberately mhsleading this House, therefore if thhs House

was to attempt to make a factual finding, in my view it would be a

kangaroo court. In my view ht would not be allowing the person `ccused

to be able to represent thelselves and it would fly in the facd of the

established principles of jtstice that we have in this countrx and for

those on this site particul`rly interested in the Human Rights Act,

particularly clause six, thd right to a fair trial. I'm grateftl to the

right honourable lady. It dhd seem to me to be somewhat strangd that

members of this House, some members who have proclaimed quite rhghtly

the importance of the Europdan Convention on human rights `nd I

need to adhere to do should suggest a process which cannot meet article

six requirements. I always get very worried when I agree so thoroughly

with the right honourable gdntleman but I do find myself agreeing with

him on many occasions. I he`r people saying you lawyers are all the same,

but when it comes to certain principles we do agree and they cut

through. Our concern is to dnsure our colleagues who are not lawyers

understand these basic principles as well. Shouldn't she be worrhed about

disagreeing with her own le`der and his comments on these matters just

at the weekend? My question to the honourable lady, has she actually

read the Private notes that the former Prime Minister sent the

president of the USA and colpared them with his public parlialentary

reports, and does she find these things consistent? The notes and the

statements were considered by Chilcot over a long period of time,

I feel the report and the pdrson writing it was a man of gre`t

standing and the report verx fair one and I'm not going to sax any

more than that. My view is there are plenty of lessons to learned from

this report, and in my view the lessons go much further than simply

focusing on one individual `nd what may have happened many years ago.

What is important in my view is what is happening now, and to make sure

the Government makes correct decisions before intervening in

other people's countries and losing of others. Is it the right

honourable lady's position that someone can only be found in

contempt of this House if they admit that contempt? No, what I'm saying

to this House is that there should be standards that we have always

upheld. For example, Warren Hastings may have been tried by this House

200 years ago but he was trhed by judges, represented, given `n

opportunity to come along and say what he said, and I don't think that

for us to draw conclusions hn a way that Chilcot was not able to without

the person involved, having an opportunity to speak or be

represented... I'm sorry, all right one more. In that case, can she say

which court called the Primd Minister be tried on? Their

respective nation, I apprechate about what may or may not h`ppen to

the former Prime Minister. This is not within my brief today speaking

as the Shadow Foreign Secretary and attempting to draw the lessons from

Chilcot. My own view is that it is important I address that thhs

afternoon in the time avail`ble to me and leave it to others to take

such legal action as they think is appropriate, and it will be for them

to take it to the proper cotrts But I don't think we can constitute

ourselves as a proper court within the great traditions of our country.

I can't remember where I was. The last year, the Government asked this

House to authorise military action in Syria, and in contrast to Iraq

the deployment of ground troops was ruled out, and that meant a reliance

on local forces instead. I was talking about flawed intellhgence,

because we were told at that stage there were 70,000 moderate rebels in

Syria, ripples that would hdlp defeat Daesh which in turn would

force Assad to step down. M`ny were sceptical about that 70,000 figure,

but the 70,000 figure was produced by the joint intelligence committee

and the Government declined to say which groups were included hn that

figure, where they were, wh`t the definition of moderate was, or how

we could be sure these rebels were signed up to the coalition's

military strategy or how thdy would get to the battlefield. All of those

questions mattered and as the Government itself acknowledged, no

military strategy could succeed without forces on the ground. Time

will tell whether those 70,000 moderate Sunni rebels existdd and

whether they are in a posithon to be able to fight the battles which it

was claimed they were going to be able to do, but I have to s`y that

it seems to me that there is a parallel to be drawn between the

intelligence relied on in rdlation to the 70,000 figure and fl`wed

intelligence that has been relied on in the past. It is important to

learn a lesson from Iraq 12 years earlier. Serious questions have been

raised about intelligence which underpins decisions we make to take

military action, and in my view once again Parliament has simply been

asked to take on trust what the Government says about intelligence.

There are further issues - the lack of ability to challenge intdrnally.

Chilcot made clear that civhl servants and Cabinet members lacked

the opportunity and information or encouragement to challenge the case

being made to them. The Prile Minister says his national Security

Council has fixed that. If that is right, why is it that the joint

committee on National Securhty strategy says that the NSC has so

far proved itself to be, and I quote, a reactive body rathdr than a

strategic one which seems to have lost an opportunity.

The NSC certainly did not challenge the short-sighted and highlx damage

it caused to our Armed Forcds in the last Parliament despite the huge

unjust I'vifiable misgivings of senior military figures abott their

impact on our defence capabhlities. Nor is there evidence of thd NSC to

challenge the inadequate pl`nning in the aftermath of Libya. Ulthmately,

while making progress in sm`ll ways, the NSC failed to address the

fundamental problem which is this. There is a culture in Whitehall I

still believe, of Averill optimistic group think which exposure to

independent views could help to us challenge. It is not good enough to

say it has been fixed. It h`s not. If the NSC... The honourabld

gentleman Sis how do I know? I'm giving the honourable gentldman how

I know theres. Because of the result of decisions, I have more I will go

into during this speech. Thd honourable lady is completely wrong

in her analysis of how the NSC approach the the review in 2010 I

was one of the members of the National Security Council. We spent

weeks reading the advice. In the light of situation the country found

itself in and a ?38 billion black hole in the defence budget we made

our decisions. The idea somd expertise was lacking beford the

National Security Council is the that time is completely wrong It is

certainly my view, I only spent six months doing defence, though I spent

a great deal immersing myself on it I don't just rely on my own views as

to what a disaster the first strategic defence roof coalhtion

spray deuce. There were senhor military figures in this cotntry and