14/04/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.desire to share that opinion both with the House and with the wider

:00:00. > :00:07.world. In that objective he has today undoubtedly succeeded. If

:00:08. > :00:11.there are no further points of order we come now to backbench business

:00:12. > :00:18.and to the motion on national security checking of the Iraq

:00:19. > :00:25.enquiry report. To move the motion I called the Right Honourable

:00:26. > :00:29.Gentleman Mr David Davis. I never cease to be impressed by your

:00:30. > :00:33.short-term memory. I beg to move that this House calls on the

:00:34. > :00:37.Government to include the National security checking of the Iraq

:00:38. > :00:41.enquiry report as soon as possible in order to allow public occasion of

:00:42. > :00:46.that report as soon as possible after the 18th of April 2016. And no

:00:47. > :00:50.later than two weeks after this date in line with the undertaking on time

:00:51. > :00:58.taken for such checking by the Prime Minister in his letter to Sir John

:00:59. > :01:06.Chilcot of 29th of October 2015. The second Iraq war was started to

:01:07. > :01:12.liberate the Iraqi people. Instead it shattered their country. Intended

:01:13. > :01:17.to stabilise the Middle East, is destabilise the Middle East.

:01:18. > :01:24.Intended to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction that did

:01:25. > :01:30.not exist, it exacerbated massively increased a threat of terrorism that

:01:31. > :01:35.does exist. And supposedly for in defence of our values, it has led to

:01:36. > :01:41.the erosion of civil liberties at home and the use of torture abroad.

:01:42. > :01:49.Because we were misled on the matter, Parliament voted for this

:01:50. > :01:54.war might 412 votes to 149 votes. So, the very good reasons for

:01:55. > :02:00.setting up the enquiry in the first place. The war led to the deaths of

:02:01. > :02:09.4800 Allied soldiers. 179 of them British. The lowest estimate, the

:02:10. > :02:14.lowest estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties was 134,000. But

:02:15. > :02:22.plausible estimates put the number at up to four times that. The war

:02:23. > :02:29.immediately created 3.4 million refugees and half of them fled the

:02:30. > :02:37.country. It cost the British taxpayer ?9.6 billion. It cost the

:02:38. > :02:43.American taxpayer 1000 $100 billion. The war has done untold damage to

:02:44. > :02:46.the reputation of the West throughout the Middle East and

:02:47. > :02:50.amongst Muslim populations both at home and abroad. Initiated to

:02:51. > :02:54.protect the west from terrorism it has in fact destroy the integrity of

:02:55. > :02:57.the Iraqi state and triggered a persistent civil war that has

:02:58. > :03:05.created the conditions, perhaps the worst terrorist threat yet to the

:03:06. > :03:08.west. Isil or Isis. It is done huge harm to the self-confidence and

:03:09. > :03:14.unity of the West, in effect neutering or foreign policy. The war

:03:15. > :03:21.was, with hindsight, the greatest foreign policy failure of this

:03:22. > :03:26.generation. And I say that as someone who was misled into voting

:03:27. > :03:30.for it. It has now been over 6.5 years since Gordon Brown launched

:03:31. > :03:34.the Iraq enquiry and over five years since it heard its last evidence. It

:03:35. > :03:39.has been over a year since this House, in a similar debate, called

:03:40. > :03:42.for the Government to publish the Iraq enquiry report as soon as

:03:43. > :03:48.possible. And yet that report has still not been published. It is no

:03:49. > :03:53.surprise that one of the most pre-eminent politicians of our era,

:03:54. > :03:59.the highly respected, very civilised ex-Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd

:04:00. > :04:06.branded the delays as a scandal. He is right. It is a disgrace. In 2009,

:04:07. > :04:13.the then leader of the is on and now Prime Minister was scornful that it

:04:14. > :04:17.would not be published before the 2010 General Election. In that year,

:04:18. > :04:22.Sir John Chilcot told families that he would complete the enquiry in a

:04:23. > :04:26.year, this is 2009, he said they would complete it in a year, if he

:04:27. > :04:33.could, but definitely not more than two years. In fact the evidence

:04:34. > :04:38.taking did not conclude until the 2nd of February 20 11. Nevertheless,

:04:39. > :04:45.and that was over five years ago, at that time, Sir John Chilcot said, it

:04:46. > :04:50.is going to take some months to deliver the report itself. Some

:04:51. > :04:54.months. Well, it is 62 and counting so far since then. In the enquiry

:04:55. > :05:00.started the declassification process. The enquiry protocols,

:05:01. > :05:06.there are nine different categories of reason for turning down

:05:07. > :05:12.declassification, for preventing, not from seeing the information, but

:05:13. > :05:15.from Sir John publishing it. What the enquiry is published is

:05:16. > :05:20.destroyed by a series of articles by precarious so broad that a veto on

:05:21. > :05:27.application can virtually be applied at Whitehall's discretion. Compare

:05:28. > :05:35.this is Scott enquiry, the Iraqi super-gun affair. It also covered

:05:36. > :05:38.issues of incredible sensitivity in terms of international security,

:05:39. > :05:40.relations, intelligence agency involvement, judicial propriety and

:05:41. > :05:46.ministerial decision making, the whole gamut. Sir Richard Scott was

:05:47. > :05:53.allowed to decide himself what he would release into the public

:05:54. > :05:57.domain. Unfettered by Whitehall. That whole couple of years of time

:05:58. > :06:03.would have been unnecessary. By contrast, Sir John Chilcot was a

:06:04. > :06:06.past Northern Ireland official office Permanent Secretary who

:06:07. > :06:11.chaired an incredibly sensitive enquiry into interceptor, some

:06:12. > :06:13.members of the House may remember that, and was considered

:06:14. > :06:17.irresponsible keeper of the Government secrets, tied up in

:06:18. > :06:23.protocol subject to the whim of Whitehall. We know there have been

:06:24. > :06:26.long negotiations between the enquiry and Sir Jeremy him in the

:06:27. > :06:30.Cabinet Secretary and his predecessors over the disclosure of

:06:31. > :06:40.some material, most notably correspondence by Expo Mr Tony Blair

:06:41. > :06:43.and George W Bush. There is no point whatsoever in the enquiry if it

:06:44. > :06:47.cannot publish the documents that show how the decision to go to war

:06:48. > :06:52.was arrived at. It is after all the point of half of the enquiry.

:06:53. > :06:57.Chilcot himself wrote a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, the question

:06:58. > :07:00.when and how the Prime Minister made commitments to the years about the

:07:01. > :07:03.UK's involved in military action in Iraq and subsequent visitors in the

:07:04. > :07:11.UK continued a ball that is central to its considerations. The

:07:12. > :07:14.negotiations between Mr Chilcot and Jeremy Heywood concluded only in May

:07:15. > :07:18.2014 when it was announced an agreement had been reached. The

:07:19. > :07:24.process was clearly frustrating for Sir John. He queried why it was that

:07:25. > :07:26.and I quote, individuals may disclose privileged information

:07:27. > :07:30.without sanction whilst the Committee of privy counsellors

:07:31. > :07:34.established by the former Prime Minister to review the issues

:07:35. > :07:39.cannot. He was of course referring to Alistair Campbell and Jonathan

:07:40. > :07:46.Powell's perspective diaries which quoted such information, again

:07:47. > :07:54.without Whitehall veto. Then came the excruciatingly long process.

:07:55. > :07:59.This was meant to be a process of notifying any people criticised in

:08:00. > :08:01.the report so they can correct factual errors and be ready to

:08:02. > :08:10.respond to those criticisms when they become public. Not intended to

:08:11. > :08:15.allow protracted negotiations between the commission and teams of

:08:16. > :08:21.expensive lawyers, incidentally expensive lawyers paid for by the

:08:22. > :08:25.taxpayer, who negotiate ad nauseam at any cost to protect their

:08:26. > :08:29.client's reputation over and above the national interest. That is what

:08:30. > :08:34.has happened. We know that the Iraq enquiry is now finally after all of

:08:35. > :08:41.that due to submit its report to the Government next week. The next stage

:08:42. > :08:47.would be security clearance before publication. The Prime Minister

:08:48. > :08:52.stated in October last year that he fully expected security clearance to

:08:53. > :08:55.take less than two weeks. As it took for the equally enormous Savile

:08:56. > :09:02.enquiry, remember that two decades to come to its conclusion -- took.

:09:03. > :09:06.It was cleared in two weeks. I cannot believe that the clearance

:09:07. > :09:12.will take a longer than this, given as we already know every single

:09:13. > :09:17.piece of this report has already been negotiated with Whitehall.

:09:18. > :09:23.Presumably on the basis of security considerations. So, given this and

:09:24. > :09:28.the Prime Minister 's declaration that he is as exasperated with the

:09:29. > :09:32.delays to publication as anyone, the public ought to expect publication

:09:33. > :09:36.of the report in the first week of May. That should be the reasonable

:09:37. > :09:41.conclusion. But this is not the case. There are no reports that the

:09:42. > :09:46.publication of the report is going to be postponed until after the EU

:09:47. > :09:52.referendum at the end of June. This is frankly outrageous. I had this

:09:53. > :09:54.for this reason that I together with right honourable and honourable

:09:55. > :09:59.members from all parties in this House have called for this debate.

:10:00. > :10:01.Demanding that the Government published the report as soon as

:10:02. > :10:08.security clearance is complete and certainly no more than two weeks

:10:09. > :10:13.after receipt. While this enquiry has lumbered on, there have been at

:10:14. > :10:16.least three significant foreign policy decisions that could have

:10:17. > :10:21.been dramatically different had we had the benefit of the Iraq

:10:22. > :10:26.enquiry's findings. The decision to intervene in Libya was intended to

:10:27. > :10:31.prevent a massacre, but since then partly because we changed the aim to

:10:32. > :10:35.regime change, the country has descended into civil war and

:10:36. > :10:40.miserable fractured chaos. And on the question of regime change, the

:10:41. > :10:44.Government first asked this House to support military action against the

:10:45. > :10:50.Assad regime in Syria in 2013, they have turned him down. Had this has

:10:51. > :10:57.not blocked military intervention, we could have ended up as a military

:10:58. > :11:03.support of our now sworn enemies IS. And of course in Iraq, the UK's

:11:04. > :11:06.involvement in ongoing civil war that has raged since the invasion in

:11:07. > :11:11.2003. There are lessons to be learned from the Iraq war, about our

:11:12. > :11:16.foreign policy, political decisions, to go to war and about or military

:11:17. > :11:20.operations. The longer we leave it, the less useful these lessons will

:11:21. > :11:25.be. And the more likely it is that we will make the same mistakes. When

:11:26. > :11:28.decisions such as those that were made in Libya, Syria and Iraq are

:11:29. > :11:35.made without the knowledge of the facts, mistakes are made and

:11:36. > :11:40.sometimes people die as a result. It is not hyperbole to say delay to the

:11:41. > :11:43.Iraq enquiry could cost lives, because bad decisions could be made.

:11:44. > :11:48.I would go further. I would say that it probably did cost lives because

:11:49. > :11:52.bad decisions were made. Indeed, it will be the case that many of the

:11:53. > :12:00.revelations reported come too late for use already taken. This is the

:12:01. > :12:06.irrecoverable harm by the unconscionable delays in this

:12:07. > :12:10.enquiry. I will of course give way. He is absolutely right in saying

:12:11. > :12:20.that the Iraq war was the most appalling miscalculation, an idiotic

:12:21. > :12:25.way of conducting foreign policy in living memory. He is looking out for

:12:26. > :12:30.the future. They also accept that the fracture within Islam which was

:12:31. > :12:35.exacerbated -- would heal so accept, the Pandora's box that was opened,

:12:36. > :12:39.violence and extremism in Islam both Middle East and internationally is

:12:40. > :12:43.sadly the gift of the Iraq war that will keep on giving and there may be

:12:44. > :12:51.possibly decades worth of intervention from extreme Islamic

:12:52. > :12:55.elements across the globe? I don't think the question is maybe, I think

:12:56. > :13:01.the question is will be. The continued disruption of

:13:02. > :13:08.International affairs, continued threats from terrorism. The Euro

:13:09. > :13:14.poll assessment -- durable assessment of number of jihadists in

:13:15. > :13:19.Europe now of about 5000 implies an arrival rate of a thousand a year.

:13:20. > :13:23.It is going up, not going down. It is very clear that the Right

:13:24. > :13:30.Honourable Gentleman is absolutely right in this and it actually brings

:13:31. > :13:32.us to a significant point over this. When the individual Prime Minister

:13:33. > :13:35.is involved in each of these decisions made the decisions, I'm

:13:36. > :13:39.sure in their own mind they were doing the right thing and stop they

:13:40. > :13:43.were trying to save lives, trying to save the civilisation ought in

:13:44. > :13:47.Tabeen to bring further terrorism, but the trouble is, every single one

:13:48. > :13:54.of them made sadistic decisions and make decisions without -- simplistic

:13:55. > :13:57.decisions. The complexity of the issues they were reaching into was

:13:58. > :14:00.beyond their knowledge and is absolutely correct thing and

:14:01. > :14:08.enhancing and improving the knowledge that the enquiry report is

:14:09. > :14:13.all about. I am no pacifist. I am no pacifist but I find myself horrified

:14:14. > :14:16.at the thoughtless, aggressive, unnecessary interventions by the

:14:17. > :14:21.West in areas which is does not understand. I did not like the

:14:22. > :14:24.Gaddafi regime. I did not like the Saddam Hussein regime. I don't

:14:25. > :14:30.particularly like the Assad regime. At ripping them out has lead to

:14:31. > :14:37.something even worse. And so the honourable gentleman is absolutely

:14:38. > :14:40.right. It brings the point of why this report and the speed of

:14:41. > :14:47.preparation in this report is so important.

:14:48. > :14:53.My right honourable friend is making an immensely compelling point. Does

:14:54. > :14:57.he also agree with me that when the report is published - we like him I

:14:58. > :15:02.hope will be as soon as possible - there will be a tendency for the

:15:03. > :15:07.British media to use it as a trial of the former Prime Minister. "Blair

:15:08. > :15:13.guilty or innocent." Whereas the great gain of this support will be

:15:14. > :15:18.to show how the government works in the run-up to a decision to go to

:15:19. > :15:23.war. A Prime Minister is not a Dr Strangelove it is about the whole

:15:24. > :15:28.machine and how it works. He will forgive me if I don't follow him

:15:29. > :15:34.down the comparison of Dr Strangelove and past Prime Ministers

:15:35. > :15:37.but he is right in one respect, that the most important element of this

:15:38. > :15:43.is what we learn from our own mistakes. But there is also issues

:15:44. > :15:51.of accountability, and of course of closure which, as I say, are I'll

:15:52. > :15:58.return to in a moment. Yes, I will. I'm very much enjoying the powerful

:15:59. > :16:04.case the right what you is making. But -- the right honourable

:16:05. > :16:07.gentlemen is making. Can I talk about Tony Blair, forever and a day

:16:08. > :16:11.he will be associated with this particular war. It is permised with

:16:12. > :16:18.him, the personality of the Prime Minister. As far as I'm concerned he

:16:19. > :16:21.could have a tattoo across his forehead, Iraq, such is his legacy.

:16:22. > :16:26.This will be a comment on him. I was in this House when we voted to go to

:16:27. > :16:30.war as was the honourable gentleman. I had to listen to that nonsense and

:16:31. > :16:35.drive from that Prime Minister for the case for war. Please make sure

:16:36. > :16:39.that the blame to be apportioned is apportioned rightly. I'll come back

:16:40. > :16:44.to this issue towards the latter part of my speech but my right

:16:45. > :16:51.honourable friend and I have a dear common friend who thinks that Mr

:16:52. > :16:55.Blair should be at The Hague but to come to that conclusion today would

:16:56. > :17:00.be to pre-empt the report. I don't intend to do that but I'll return to

:17:01. > :17:05.accountability in a minute. All right. I give way. Just to get the

:17:06. > :17:12.balance correct, that if we go back to the time of the votes, actually a

:17:13. > :17:17.majority of the non-pay roll vote in the Labour Party, 122 members of the

:17:18. > :17:21.Labour Party -- and I was proud to be one of the organisers of this -

:17:22. > :17:25.rebelled against their own Government. Had the Conservative

:17:26. > :17:29.Party supported us, we would not have gone to war but those are

:17:30. > :17:34.historical things that I think is important to place on record S that

:17:35. > :17:39.the biggest parliamentary rebellion, within a governing party was by the

:17:40. > :17:43.Labour Party on taking to us war when we, many of us at the time,

:17:44. > :17:47.realised it would be a disaster but none of us realised at the time what

:17:48. > :17:51.an appalling disaster it would be, that would carry on for decades and

:17:52. > :17:55.influence us domestically as well as in the Middle East. The honourable

:17:56. > :18:02.gentleman makes his point well. One of the issues that the report will

:18:03. > :18:06.face up to, one hopes, is the voracity of what was told to the

:18:07. > :18:14.House that day. That will be one of the key issues, which is why the

:18:15. > :18:20.argument between Sir John chill chot and Whitehall is very important. --

:18:21. > :18:24.Sir John Chilcot. I think the argument, reading between the lines

:18:25. > :18:29.of his letters, was about the decisions before the House made the

:18:30. > :18:34.decisions. What was told to the House, whether it was accurate

:18:35. > :18:38.enough, whether it was based on impartial briefings or whether the

:18:39. > :18:43.politics coloured the view of the components of the style. I will not

:18:44. > :18:47.intend to answer that today but I would be incredibly disappointed if

:18:48. > :18:51.Chilcot, if the Commission's report does not actually answer those

:18:52. > :18:55.questions in plain English, which is why I will not be drawn by my right

:18:56. > :19:00.honourable friend, who is a great friend of mine, I think it has to

:19:01. > :19:04.answer those questions. What the tabloid press and other press does

:19:05. > :19:10.with it the day after is not for me. I want to press on with the lessons

:19:11. > :19:15.to learn not just about the war but how we should conduct inquiries. The

:19:16. > :19:21.Government's intention now is to review the process where those who

:19:22. > :19:25.have been criticised have been given a chance to beyond. That is to be

:19:26. > :19:30.welcomed. Maxwellisation is responsible for the delays in this.

:19:31. > :19:36.It is clear that strict time controls are needed for future

:19:37. > :19:39.inquiries. It cannot be right that those who can be criticised can

:19:40. > :19:44.declay publication for their own interest. It cannot be right. --

:19:45. > :19:47.delay publication. That's what I hope will arise. Despite all of

:19:48. > :19:51.this, there is no reason to delay further. There is some suggestion

:19:52. > :19:54.that delay between the report being security cleared and its

:19:55. > :20:03.obviouslication is due to the need for the report to be proof-read and

:20:04. > :20:09.typeset. This would be unacceptable if true, it is already in electronic

:20:10. > :20:12.format. It is already checked for accuracy. It'll be read by more

:20:13. > :20:16.people than some newspapers are read. The fact is, the report has

:20:17. > :20:25.been poured over by many people for five years. We are in the 21st

:20:26. > :20:29.century, we not in the of hot lead type setting. Is somebody said to me

:20:30. > :20:36.this morning - I might have summarised that long motion rather

:20:37. > :20:38.more crisply by saying - this House instructs Sir John Chilcot strictly

:20:39. > :21:02.to press send. I'm sure my right honourable friend

:21:03. > :21:07.will agree that we need answers. And redaction should be kept to a

:21:08. > :21:12.minimum. These families should not have to endure a cover-up. She is

:21:13. > :21:23.right. I would be astonished if there are any redactions in this

:21:24. > :21:31.report. I remember when I was of the accounts committee, I had a report

:21:32. > :21:40.on MI5 and MI6 buildings. The report came in four whys. The chanter from

:21:41. > :21:45.MI5 and six were almost identical. We rang up MI5 and said we had

:21:46. > :21:50.agreed and MI6, they had agreed. We removed them. They were political.

:21:51. > :21:57.It preserved the interests of the bureaucracy sis involved, not of the

:21:58. > :22:01.organisation or national interest. The simple truth here is that the

:22:02. > :22:07.facts in this report have been lore cleared. That's what two years of

:22:08. > :22:10.this argument is about If there is a single redaction, and I others will

:22:11. > :22:15.be looking at it closely to see why was it not redacted years ago, not

:22:16. > :22:20.now but she is right about the rights of the families in this

:22:21. > :22:25.affair. Now there is no doubt that the whole council industry fed up

:22:26. > :22:33.with waiting for the final report. And we know more so than the

:22:34. > :22:37.families of the 179 families of those who died fighting in Iraq. --

:22:38. > :22:42.and no more So they have suffered for years as the inquiry has dragged

:22:43. > :22:45.on and on and it would be frankly disgraceful to make them waits

:22:46. > :22:48.months longer, just because the Government is worried what effect it

:22:49. > :22:52.will have, if any, on the referendum. What impact that can be,

:22:53. > :23:00.I cannot imagine, given there is no party political advantage in this,

:23:01. > :23:03.to either side. But both the Conservatives and Labour supported

:23:04. > :23:06.the war, as the right honourable gentleman said, half the Labour

:23:07. > :23:11.Party stood back for it or voted against it. There is no advantage

:23:12. > :23:15.either way. The inquiry was started by Labour and was supported by the

:23:16. > :23:20.Prime Minister. So, it is inconceivable that the Government

:23:21. > :23:26.should seek to wait until after the June referendum to publish the

:23:27. > :23:29.report. I would hope my right honourable friend the Minster, when

:23:30. > :23:34.she speaks will make it clear that is not going to happen. I'm sure he

:23:35. > :23:40.can address that correct. I Let's put this in context. If it waited

:23:41. > :23:45.until June t would be seven years since the inquiry started and some

:23:46. > :23:50.of the parents -- let's put this in context, if it waited until June it

:23:51. > :23:55.would be seven years and some of of the parents of the dead soldiers

:23:56. > :23:59.would be waiting ten years for an answer. For comparison, the Israeli

:24:00. > :24:05.Government appointed a commission in 2006 to investigate their Lebanon

:24:06. > :24:09.war, the war with Lebanon. It produced its interim report in seven

:24:10. > :24:14.months. Not seven years, seven months. A report highly critical of

:24:15. > :24:19.the existing government that set it up and its final report in 17

:24:20. > :24:23.months. Any arguments for delay on the grounds of political sensitivity

:24:24. > :24:27.or national security will be far more pressing in Israel where, that

:24:28. > :24:31.is a matter of Israeli life and death, to all of the citizens and

:24:32. > :24:35.where, because it is a matter of daily life and death for the

:24:36. > :24:41.citizens is a matter of very high politics, extremely important

:24:42. > :24:45.politics. So, if they can do it in seven months and 17 months, we can

:24:46. > :24:50.do it hopefully in a lot less than seven years. Now to return to the

:24:51. > :24:55.point my right honourable friend raised, there will be, of course,

:24:56. > :25:02.some people held to account in this report. Or it will properly be

:25:03. > :25:07.dismissed as a whitewash. So that is to be expected. That is to be

:25:08. > :25:10.expected, it's got to be right. But it is principally about learning

:25:11. > :25:15.from the mistakes we made as a nation. It is about ensuring we do

:25:16. > :25:20.not make the same mistakes again in future. . It's also about

:25:21. > :25:27.remembering those who suffered great loss. It is about giving them some

:25:28. > :25:32.measure of solace in the truth, about giving them some degree of

:25:33. > :25:43.closure. It's about doing the honourable thing by those ultimate

:25:44. > :25:49.who made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. To delay any further

:25:50. > :25:53.would be nothing short of an insult to those who died and a cruel insult

:25:54. > :25:57.for their families who have waited for more than six years to get a

:25:58. > :26:02.proper answer. I beg to move. THE SPEAKER: Order, the question is as

:26:03. > :26:06.on the order people. Mr Paul Flynn. I agree with every warm that the

:26:07. > :26:10.honourable gentleman said and congratulate him on obtaining this

:26:11. > :26:14.debate. This is an issue that disturbs those of us who were here

:26:15. > :26:21.at the time, more than any other decision taken in the last - in this

:26:22. > :26:26.generation. And those members who were in the debate, and voted in

:26:27. > :26:30.their view, now, in hindsight the wrong way, deeply regret it and

:26:31. > :26:34.regard their parliamentary careers as failures because they allowed

:26:35. > :26:38.themselves to be bribed, bullied, bamboozled into believing a fiction

:26:39. > :26:41.that came from the frontbench but it wasn't just the Prime Minister.

:26:42. > :26:46.Let's remember this was the whole establishment. This was three

:26:47. > :26:50.parliamentary Select Committees that supported it, Farne affairs, defence

:26:51. > :26:54.and intelligence, the military supported the idea. The Conservative

:26:55. > :26:59.Party were more gung ho than the Labour Party. And so, we have to

:27:00. > :27:04.look at that because the repercussions for today, they still

:27:05. > :27:10.continue. The suffering continues. The mother of the 200 soldiers that

:27:11. > :27:15.died in Afghanistan, Hazel Hunt has set up a foundation she runs, a

:27:16. > :27:20.successful charity. -- the 200th soldier. But it is dealing with the

:27:21. > :27:24.thousands of those soldiered who have been maimed in mind or in body

:27:25. > :27:29.as a result of that terrible mistake but we also need to get the Iraq

:27:30. > :27:33.inquiry over, so we can have another inquiry. Because there was another

:27:34. > :27:38.terrible mistake made in 2006, when it was decided to go into Helmand

:27:39. > :27:43.province, in the belief that not a shot would be fired and at that time

:27:44. > :27:49.we had been in Afghanistan for five years. Only six of our soldiers have

:27:50. > :27:54.died in conflict but, as a result of that terrible error of invading

:27:55. > :27:59.Helmand in 2006, 450 of our soldiers died. I think the important point,

:28:00. > :28:06.and this is not being wise after the event, I sent a letter to Tony Blair

:28:07. > :28:13.in March 20003, saying that if we go into Iraq, in support of Bush's war

:28:14. > :28:17.t would mean that we drive -- d, it would mean we drive a wedge between

:28:18. > :28:23.the Christian Western World and Muslim world. There would be

:28:24. > :28:27.antagonism and inus is just tis. From the Muslims in my local mosque

:28:28. > :28:31.to the far corners of the world. The memory is right, that ISIS is the

:28:32. > :28:34.daughter of our decision to go to Iraq. We must look at that with

:28:35. > :28:44.great seriousness. They made a number of strong women

:28:45. > :28:50.distance. The main one was that it should not be held in secret. --

:28:51. > :28:54.recommendations. That it should be an enquiry with a large

:28:55. > :28:58.parliamentary element in it and there should be to enquiries, one

:28:59. > :29:03.into the reason going to war and one until you reach percussions. --

:29:04. > :29:08.repercussions. Never in our wildest nightmares did anyone believe that

:29:09. > :29:14.it would take seven years for the loved ones of those who had fallen,

:29:15. > :29:18.to suffer, this period of not knowing whether their loved ones

:29:19. > :29:21.were sent to a battle but was based on the vanity of politicians and not

:29:22. > :29:26.on the real interests of our country. The agony goes on. Of

:29:27. > :29:30.course the honourable member is absolutely right, with modern

:29:31. > :29:33.printing and publishing techniques it is possible to write a book,

:29:34. > :29:38.e-mail it to the printers and get it back to three days later. It is

:29:39. > :29:42.virtually instantaneous. The whole system of setting up things in type

:29:43. > :29:46.was immensely laborious and time-consuming. There is no excuse

:29:47. > :29:51.for delaying this any further. Not for a single day. Loved ones deserve

:29:52. > :29:54.closure. They have waited far too long and it was only in the

:29:55. > :30:02.political interests of those who were responsible. Would he also

:30:03. > :30:08.accept the publication would be part of what is necessary to purge our

:30:09. > :30:13.own party of the fault line that occurred around the time of the Iraq

:30:14. > :30:18.war and continues to this day and also besmirches the reputation of an

:30:19. > :30:23.otherwise very fine Prime Minister, who until we admit the mistake of

:30:24. > :30:28.going to Iraq, opening this Pandora's box will forever be known

:30:29. > :30:33.as the person who took us to war on the coat-tails of George W Bush

:30:34. > :30:37.against so many of his colleagues who were in the House at the time

:30:38. > :30:43.and a mistake it is to be corrected. It would be good for all of us on

:30:44. > :30:46.these benches if nowhere else. As someone brought up with their

:30:47. > :30:51.religious background, I am well known to realise fully the

:30:52. > :30:56.advantages of confession and be beneficial nature they have on us.

:30:57. > :31:01.That must be the case. It is absolutely crucial we understand

:31:02. > :31:06.that mindset that drove us into a war and that mindset is one if we

:31:07. > :31:11.heard recently in other debates here when going into Libya or Syria and

:31:12. > :31:17.is this myth that infects English MPs rather than Scottish or Welsh or

:31:18. > :31:23.Irish MPs, the idea that the UK, our country must punch above its weight

:31:24. > :31:32.militarily, but always means spending beyond our interests and

:31:33. > :31:36.dying beyond our responsibilities. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm delighted

:31:37. > :31:41.to take part in this debate and congratulate my Right Honourable

:31:42. > :31:48.friend and others who are responsible for initiating this

:31:49. > :31:52.extremely important debate. I agree that when the former Foreign

:31:53. > :31:57.Secretary, former Home Secretary Lord Hurd described it delay in the

:31:58. > :32:00.publications as a scandal, he was absolutely right. I think many of us

:32:01. > :32:05.in this House were absolutely horrified by the way in which Sir

:32:06. > :32:14.John Chilcot's buried his head in the sand amidst criticism all-round,

:32:15. > :32:17.I think it was last year by 2014, and my Right Honourable friend set

:32:18. > :32:21.out the timetable where we have been assured that action was going to be

:32:22. > :32:27.taken, the report was going to published and we have just been

:32:28. > :32:29.strung along and it has been said, it has been the bereaved who are

:32:30. > :32:38.paying the ultimate price for this delay. I'd like to start off if I

:32:39. > :32:42.may by saying that we as the official opposition, the

:32:43. > :32:49.Conservative Party, in 2007, called for a public enquiry into the

:32:50. > :32:55.reasons why the Iraq war happened and the conduct thereof and we

:32:56. > :32:59.initiated that debate on the 11th of June 2007 and I happened to wind up

:33:00. > :33:03.for the opposition as a Shadow defence minister at the time. The

:33:04. > :33:09.Labour Party opposed it and the then Foreign Secretary described it as

:33:10. > :33:12.self-indulgent retrospection and our debate as opportunistic. Of course

:33:13. > :33:18.that is because Gordon Brown did in 2009 eventually -- changed. He

:33:19. > :33:27.ordered the Chilcot enquiry but by that time already, something like

:33:28. > :33:34.six years had passed. We weren't alone, there were others on the

:33:35. > :33:38.other side, the honourable gentleman, I don't know whether he

:33:39. > :33:46.was a supporter at the time. We give three reasons why we felt enquiry

:33:47. > :33:49.news to take place. There was a lack of a discussion in the run-up to the

:33:50. > :33:54.conflict about post-conflict reconstruction. I do remember going

:33:55. > :33:58.to Washington at the time. The debate at Washington in the run-up

:33:59. > :34:03.to the conflict was all about. Conflict reconstruction. It wasn't

:34:04. > :34:08.delivered, that fact is another matter altogether, but we will not

:34:09. > :34:14.having a debate here. The debate, I figured was the 3rd of January in

:34:15. > :34:16.initiated by my Right Honourable friend the member from Meriden whose

:34:17. > :34:23.Shadow Secretary of State at the time. They were not willing to

:34:24. > :34:32.discuss the aftermath of any conflict. Of course. I don't think

:34:33. > :34:39.we have learnt anything if you look at the situation in the Middle East,

:34:40. > :34:45.Libya is a mess, a dictatorship. We learned nothing because we did not

:34:46. > :34:48.plan any post-war reconstruction. I couldn't possibly disagree with the

:34:49. > :34:54.honourable gentleman. I think that is entirely right. The second reason

:34:55. > :35:01.why we felt the enquiry was necessary was to consider, and I

:35:02. > :35:06.will quote from what I actually said in the debate in June 2007, how we

:35:07. > :35:10.should adjust our whole military posture to the new type of military

:35:11. > :35:14.operations we face including at the tactical level, whether or soldiers,

:35:15. > :35:16.sailors are getting the right training package for the type of

:35:17. > :35:19.warfare, whether we have the right equipment for the task, whether we

:35:20. > :35:23.have the correct balance of forces and what needs to be done so that we

:35:24. > :35:27.do not become disproportionately reliant on urgent operational

:35:28. > :35:31.requirements come a kind of panic buying formula to make up the

:35:32. > :35:36.shortfall in equipment. That was the second reason why we felt that we

:35:37. > :35:43.needed to hold that enquiry. The second was, the third reason was

:35:44. > :35:46.because a number of Select Committee enquiries, there was a real need for

:35:47. > :35:50.a copper heads of enquiry to be conducted by an independent

:35:51. > :35:56.Committee established by the Government. We suggested there was

:35:57. > :36:00.real urgency for that to be done and by Right Honourable friend in

:36:01. > :36:07.introducing this debate mentioned the effect of the time like --

:36:08. > :36:13.time-lag. The reason for the relative urgency is that as my Right

:36:14. > :36:17.Honourable friend now Lord Haig said, while the events are fresh in

:36:18. > :36:21.people's minds and the e-mails have not been destroyed, we need to learn

:36:22. > :36:24.whatever lessons we can from the diagram to operations in Iraq so far

:36:25. > :36:28.and to apply them to Afghanistan before it is too late. There was an

:36:29. > :36:32.imperative and I think there has been a great disservice done to

:36:33. > :36:40.everybody in that this enquiry was not established immediately in the

:36:41. > :36:46.aftermath of the Iraq war. And indeed was six years late. As I say,

:36:47. > :36:56.I think it is the bereaved who are owed an explanation first of all. He

:36:57. > :37:01.has been a Defence Minister and eight defence... Before he goes on

:37:02. > :37:04.his leg section, if he would give his opinion on the argument that was

:37:05. > :37:09.put the time which was that whenever our forces are in the field we can

:37:10. > :37:13.have an enquiry, it seems to me to be members. -- can't. In Norway we

:37:14. > :37:20.had an enquiry, would he give his opinion on that. I agree. He

:37:21. > :37:26.mentions Norway, so there is plenty of precedent for that. I think it

:37:27. > :37:30.was an excuse for not holding an enquiry and I think it was a

:37:31. > :37:35.mistake. It is not just the bereaved, it is those of us who were

:37:36. > :37:41.in the South at the time, for all of us bought a responsibility -- in the

:37:42. > :37:45.House at the time. A responsibility whether to vote for the war or not.

:37:46. > :37:50.Those of us on the front bench had a special responsibility but we had no

:37:51. > :37:56.more information than what you read the newspapers. When I voted the

:37:57. > :38:00.war, I did so for three reasons, I had a meeting with Hans Blix in New

:38:01. > :38:03.York, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, he said in his

:38:04. > :38:10.view he had no doubt that Saddam Hussein intended to develop weapons

:38:11. > :38:13.of mass destruction and if they could develop them he would use

:38:14. > :38:17.them, he just couldn't at the point find them and that was just a month

:38:18. > :38:21.before the war started. I thought that was pretty compelling.

:38:22. > :38:27.Secondly, the 45 minute claim. When we were told, and I remember

:38:28. > :38:32.vividly, it was all over the front page of the Evening Standard, that

:38:33. > :38:40.Saddam Hussein could launch, I think it was described as battlefield,

:38:41. > :38:44.biological and chemical weapons at 45 minutes notice and would reach

:38:45. > :38:47.the sovereign British base of Cyprus, I thought I had a

:38:48. > :38:53.responsible at the, I am a Shadow Defence Minister, if that happened,

:38:54. > :38:56.I could hear Mr John Humphrys on the today programme saying, well, you

:38:57. > :39:04.knew all about this, why didn't you take action to time? So, I felt that

:39:05. > :39:09.claim was one that one had to take seriously and thirdly I thought as a

:39:10. > :39:13.key Islay of the United States, -- ally of the United States, we had to

:39:14. > :39:18.have a good reason for not supporting our US friends. Not a

:39:19. > :39:22.view I am sure will be shared universally throughout the House.

:39:23. > :39:30.Could he tell me, because he has a very nodule position on me, -- --

:39:31. > :39:38.very nodule position on this. Was there any plausible case to say what

:39:39. > :39:44.scenario he would ever use them against the West, without

:39:45. > :39:49.guaranteeing his own suicide? A good question, but a question in

:39:50. > :39:52.retrospect, at the time, not only did the chief weapons inspector tell

:39:53. > :39:57.me to my face and the rest of us on the Defence Select Committee who met

:39:58. > :40:01.in New York, that he thought that Saddam Hussein was intent upon

:40:02. > :40:06.developing weapons of mass action, but then I read also that I am told

:40:07. > :40:11.by the Government, the British Government, my government, that

:40:12. > :40:15.there was a possibility that he would be able to launch these little

:40:16. > :40:23.weapons at 45 minutes notice. -- lethal weapons. Also the point that

:40:24. > :40:29.this involved Doctor David Kelly and all the tragedy surrounding that

:40:30. > :40:35.poor chap and the dodgy dossier. I do believe that one of the things

:40:36. > :40:40.that Mr Blair and the rest of that government will have to account to

:40:41. > :40:45.the nation for is what I believe to the usurpations of the joint

:40:46. > :40:50.Intelligence Committee by the Prime Minister's spin Doctor Alistair

:40:51. > :40:53.Campbell. He was the man who was putting pressure on the joint

:40:54. > :40:59.Intelligence Committee led by Sir John Scarlett to release as much

:41:00. > :41:04.information to make, to coin a phrase, a sexed up dossier, to make

:41:05. > :41:07.the case as convincing as possible to us in this House and to the

:41:08. > :41:16.British people that there was a real threat that we could not ignore and

:41:17. > :41:24.upon which we had to take action. If I may just finished. I do think one

:41:25. > :41:30.of the lessons that we have to learn now is that the joint Intelligence

:41:31. > :41:36.Committee has to be led by a ban for women of experience in the security

:41:37. > :41:41.-- man or woman. Subject to political pressure. Their

:41:42. > :41:48.professional view must be respected and their authority must not be

:41:49. > :41:51.usurped. I give way. I thank my very good friend for allowing me to

:41:52. > :41:56.intervene. One of the things that has confused me and I agree with

:41:57. > :42:00.absolutely every word you said so far, sir, one thing that has really

:42:01. > :42:05.worried me and I'd think we have heard answer yet, if there were no

:42:06. > :42:11.weapons of mass disruption, particularly of rank to chemical

:42:12. > :42:14.weapons, what was it that killed the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs cos we

:42:15. > :42:21.never found them, where the heck did they go? My honourable gallant

:42:22. > :42:28.friend raises a good question but I don't think that will be in my

:42:29. > :42:31.contribution to the debate and perhaps you can develop that if he

:42:32. > :42:36.is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have set out the

:42:37. > :42:39.position of the opposition at the time, the Conservative opposition at

:42:40. > :42:43.the time, we believe it was imperative that an enquiry were

:42:44. > :42:51.held, but it was urgent that that enquiry be held and I have expert

:42:52. > :42:57.and why it was that I supported the war and some of the shenanigans that

:42:58. > :43:03.went on to try and persuade the British people that there was

:43:04. > :43:07.justification of it. I think, to conclude, the delay has been in

:43:08. > :43:13.publication of this report, it has been wholly unacceptable. I entirely

:43:14. > :43:16.agree with my Right Honourable friend. Five years on from when Sir

:43:17. > :43:20.John said that it would take him a few months to prepare the final

:43:21. > :43:27.report, five years on, those families have had to wait and being

:43:28. > :43:34.held in limbo. I agree that the maximisation arrangement has got to

:43:35. > :43:38.be revisited. We cannot have an open-ended allowance for people who

:43:39. > :43:40.have been criticised in a draft report to be able to come back. The

:43:41. > :44:01.mostly a time limit on matters. As one who is deeply critical of the

:44:02. > :44:08.Salve report, which took many years and cost millions of pounds -- the

:44:09. > :44:12.Saville report. Finally, let's compare what has gone

:44:13. > :44:15.on in the last seven years with what went on after the Falklands

:44:16. > :44:23.campaign. Three weeks after the end of that war, the Prime Minister

:44:24. > :44:27.announced an inquiry. That inquiry took six months to deliberate and

:44:28. > :44:33.report. And there were international ramifications. Because, of course,

:44:34. > :44:39.the United States was initially tempted to be on the side of its

:44:40. > :44:44.South American neighbour. So, there were sensitivities which I know will

:44:45. > :44:50.apply in this case, with regard to the relationship between Prime

:44:51. > :44:53.Ministers Tony Blair and George W Bush, but there were similar

:44:54. > :45:02.sensitivities in the case of the Falklands' campaign. That inquiry

:45:03. > :45:07.cost ?81,500 which, at today's prices is about ?280,000. I

:45:08. > :45:13.understand this morning, I have been advised by a friend that it is

:45:14. > :45:19.likely that the Chilcot report will be 2.5 million words and 12 volumes.

:45:20. > :45:22.Whether the interests of better understanding of are served by a

:45:23. > :45:28.report of this length or not, I know not but what I do know, is that in

:45:29. > :45:32.this House we are right to demand that report be published as quickly

:45:33. > :45:35.as possible. Thank you very much, Madame Deputy

:45:36. > :45:40.Speaker. This is a debate which I have an honour to take part in but I

:45:41. > :45:43.have to say I have no pleasure. I don't think we should have be having

:45:44. > :45:46.this debate because the Chilcot Inquiry should have been published

:45:47. > :45:53.by now. I think it is important we look over the key times. Time has

:45:54. > :45:58.been a huge issue in the whole Genesis of this report. We have to

:45:59. > :46:01.bear in mind that John Chilcot promised to have his report

:46:02. > :46:05.delivered been the week commencing 18th April. I think from what I

:46:06. > :46:09.understand that John Chilcot will be honouring his word on that. The

:46:10. > :46:12.Prime Minister also promised to have it security cleared within a

:46:13. > :46:17.fortnight. That's the week beginning 2nd May. I think the promise I'm

:46:18. > :46:21.looking for, from the Government frontbench is that the Government

:46:22. > :46:24.will keep its word and a fortnight after Sir John Chilcot has given

:46:25. > :46:29.that report, that we do see that report published. It is shall as

:46:30. > :46:35.many have said and as has been said earlier in the press conference, not

:46:36. > :46:38.a difficult matter. It is as another member said, a matter of pressing

:46:39. > :46:42.send and it is published. People have waited far too long for this

:46:43. > :46:46.report and further delays are only add together pain of the families

:46:47. > :46:50.who are looking for closure on this report. But, it is also adding to

:46:51. > :46:55.the ever-increasing time where we fail to learn the less of Iraq,

:46:56. > :47:00.lessons we should have learned several years ago. Indeed it is not

:47:01. > :47:04.just the timeline as mentioned there, there are more timelines in

:47:05. > :47:10.this romplt last year there was a debate again hold and hosted by the

:47:11. > :47:14.member for, on 29th January, calling for this to be published by 12th

:47:15. > :47:18.February last year. There was uproar in the House at Prime Minister's

:47:19. > :47:23.questions and other times to imagine the report would be delayed upon the

:47:24. > :47:29.general election of May 2015. We are now in April 2016 and again there is

:47:30. > :47:33.uncertainty about the report. But this report kicked off in 2009.

:47:34. > :47:37.Again there is another timeline before that, of impatience, with the

:47:38. > :47:43.report and I would like to remind the House of a debate here when I

:47:44. > :47:50.was quite a new MP here, for about a year-and-a-half, fted 31st October

:47:51. > :47:56.2006 when a cross-party debate was held and led by the then honourable

:47:57. > :47:59.member, Adam Price, I think it is instructive to go back and look at

:48:00. > :48:04.the words that Adam used at the beginning of that speech, he said

:48:05. > :48:09."It is about accountability. It is about the monumental catastrophe of

:48:10. > :48:11.the Iraq war, which is the worst foreign policy disaster certainly

:48:12. > :48:16.since Suez and possibly since Munich. It is about the mores a in

:48:17. > :48:20.which greatably we find ourselves, it is about the breakdown in our

:48:21. > :48:25.system of government, our fault flooin our constitution that only

:48:26. > :48:29.we, as a Parliament can fix, fix it we must, if there are not to be

:48:30. > :48:33.further mistakes and other Iraqs under other Prime Ministers in which

:48:34. > :48:40.case we shall have only ourselves to blame." I think those words that

:48:41. > :48:43.were used in that speech in 2006 still ring very true today. Other

:48:44. > :48:47.debate, Tony Blair refused to come, the then Prime Minister, despite

:48:48. > :48:53.saying a number of weeks earlier to a member from the party opposite

:48:54. > :49:02.that he would come at any time to a debate on Iraq. During that debate,

:49:03. > :49:07.part of the defence given was that soldiers were in the theatre of

:49:08. > :49:12.operation. But that was admirably dealt with by Douglas Hogg who was

:49:13. > :49:17.then a Conservative MP, now Lord Hogg, who said that during World War

:49:18. > :49:24.Two, the Norway debacle had been led by his father and that was when

:49:25. > :49:29.troops had been in action. And that key moment, of the Norway inquiry,

:49:30. > :49:34.am in the certain of the name, led to the removal of can Chamberlain

:49:35. > :49:37.and the installation of Churchill instead, which may have been

:49:38. > :49:42.instrumental in changing the course of World War Two because this

:49:43. > :49:45.Chamber then was not afraid. I think hank the honourable member for

:49:46. > :49:51.giving way. This is an issue which I think this House needs to address in

:49:52. > :49:55.terms. The idea that we cannot debate or investigate anything when

:49:56. > :49:59.troops are in the field. When I have spoken to our troops in the field,

:50:00. > :50:05.they want our democracy to work properly. They want to feel they are

:50:06. > :50:09.fighting for a cause, which is an honourable cause. It seems to me n

:50:10. > :50:13.future we should dismiss that argument, the idea that somehow we

:50:14. > :50:17.are undermining our troops when what we are doing is standing up for

:50:18. > :50:22.something which will ensure their lives are not wasted in the few

:50:23. > :50:25.future. The honourable member is right, people and troops want to

:50:26. > :50:28.feel that this place is not on autopilot. It is a living,

:50:29. > :50:33.functioning, thinking and reacting to lessons and to have committed

:50:34. > :50:38.them to the mores a, as I have said, and to refuse to learn lessons is an

:50:39. > :50:44.absolute abdication of be responsibility that was taken by

:50:45. > :50:50.this House. I will give way. Picking up the point from my honourable

:50:51. > :50:54.friend, if I may - shouldn't the default position of the House be

:50:55. > :50:59.that there will be an inquiry once we have committed troops into

:51:00. > :51:06.action, and perhaps when that action is either in the midst of the action

:51:07. > :51:09.or once it is concluded, that there shall be, normally an inquiry. This

:51:10. > :51:14.is a very serious matter. People died. Very serious foreign policy

:51:15. > :51:19.issues. Rather than - oh, we might make a decision to have an inquiry

:51:20. > :51:23.if we really think that's necessary. That's the Government saying that.

:51:24. > :51:27.This House, the legislature should have a default position that there

:51:28. > :51:33.should automatically be an inquiry when we have committed people to

:51:34. > :51:37.war. The honourable member is quite right, very right. We expect the

:51:38. > :51:43.military to do their jobs when we commit them to war and I take the

:51:44. > :51:47.word "we" I did not support T I wasn't an MP at the time. I didn't

:51:48. > :51:51.support Iraq like most of the rest of the citizency of the UK and

:51:52. > :51:56.certainly Scotland. But when we ask them as a collective to do a job, we

:51:57. > :52:00.ourselves should be prepared to do our job and to change, if necessary,

:52:01. > :52:05.not to run awane not to be scared. We have to remember there was a

:52:06. > :52:11.Butler inquiry around the time of the Iraq war n 2004, before became

:52:12. > :52:15.an MP, which was on the front page of the Evening Standard dismissed as

:52:16. > :52:18.a white wash. So when the Government thought they were getting inquiries

:52:19. > :52:23.of a certain type they were willing to have them t would seem. I thank

:52:24. > :52:27.the honourable member for giving way, as well as the other important

:52:28. > :52:33.points made by himself and other honourable members, is it not hugely

:52:34. > :52:37.important that we remove this false parliamentary rue Rick of no inquiry

:52:38. > :52:42.while troops are in the field. Otherwise governments will have a

:52:43. > :52:47.perverse incentive to keep troops in the field, in a possibly

:52:48. > :52:50.disintegrating and changing situation, precisely to avoid an

:52:51. > :52:56.inquiry. I'm grateful for the honourable member for making that

:52:57. > :53:01.point. He probably long-know s I'm a great admirer of his thoughts and

:53:02. > :53:05.ideas, he is right, about the perverse incentive the government

:53:06. > :53:11.would have to keep a war going to keep away from an inquiry. Hopefully

:53:12. > :53:17.that with never happen but we never know the machinations of politics,

:53:18. > :53:22.just to keep it going another month, kick the can further down the road.

:53:23. > :53:26.I think it was kicked down the road in 2009. A pivotal thing changed,

:53:27. > :53:29.the Prime Minister of the day changed, from Tony Blair to Gordon

:53:30. > :53:33.Brown. Many people can draw their own conclusions on that but I feel

:53:34. > :53:39.that was significant. I will wait for the inquiry to see how

:53:40. > :53:43.significant that was. We can't have a situation where we have, in this

:53:44. > :53:46.Parliament, and it has been said by honourable members, running away

:53:47. > :53:56.from the reality of what they have committed other people to do. The

:53:57. > :54:00.Iraq war cost ultimately 179 UK lives, that's not to count as has

:54:01. > :54:05.been said, those wounded in body and mind. It is not also to account the

:54:06. > :54:08.knock-on effects to families and loved ones and people dealing with

:54:09. > :54:14.those who have been wounded in body and mind. It has taken a toll of

:54:15. > :54:18.people in the UK atloevenlt has cost 4,800 Allied soldiers but sadly

:54:19. > :54:22.those figures, terrible as they are, are dwarfed by the civilian

:54:23. > :54:25.casualties in Iraq itself. It is about 134,000, at the Lows

:54:26. > :54:32.estimates. Possibly four times higher than that. The war created

:54:33. > :54:35.3.5 million refugees. Lessons we must learn of what we got ourselves

:54:36. > :54:42.involved with and what we might be doing again f we haven't got the

:54:43. > :54:45.courage to face up to what was done. High honourable friend is being

:54:46. > :54:48.generous in giving way. He is talking about figures when peace was

:54:49. > :54:53.declared. What a disastrous, unprepared peace that was. Would he

:54:54. > :54:58.also take into account, possibly, at least as much, probably certainly

:54:59. > :55:03.more than those casualty figures that have occurred subsequently

:55:04. > :55:10.because of opening up the rift between Shia and sunny and allowing

:55:11. > :55:14.-- and Sunni, and allowing the opportunities for a warfare that is

:55:15. > :55:19.spreading to an international guerrilla warfare. If he includes

:55:20. > :55:26.those numbers, too, won't he in fact find an enormous death toll, running

:55:27. > :55:32.currently into #34i8 yobs and who knows to how many in the future. --

:55:33. > :55:35.running into millions. The honourable gentleman is right. A

:55:36. > :55:39.further addition I would add to that is the other fallout from the Iraq

:55:40. > :55:43.war, which was, as we must remembered was demonstrated by over

:55:44. > :55:47.1 million people on streets of the UK, and if 1 million people were

:55:48. > :55:50.demonstrating, we can sure there were many, many more, several

:55:51. > :55:56.factors more that would be in support of those million but I would

:55:57. > :56:01.add to that, the creation of Daesh in the camps of Iraq. It was the a

:56:02. > :56:05.myth at the time that they went into Iraq because Al-Qaeda was there,

:56:06. > :56:08.which was part of the myth-making in America foray jeep chavenlingt the

:56:09. > :56:12.reality is they weren't there until the Americans went in and created

:56:13. > :56:16.something far worse in those camps and the responsibility of what was

:56:17. > :56:19.done there, not just in loss of lives but certainly in the loss of

:56:20. > :56:26.lives, but in the costs and creation and terror of the future is

:56:27. > :56:31.something that holds and hangs very, very d a aptly over the Iraq war and

:56:32. > :56:34.we should learn from it and make sure we get the report published

:56:35. > :56:38.soon. Time is of the essence. Time is the big factor, kick the can down

:56:39. > :56:43.the road even further is not acceptable. On 29th October 20 #15,

:56:44. > :56:45.the Prime Minister seemed to be unequivocal on clearance taking two

:56:46. > :56:48.weeks which is the point of this deba. He said in relation to

:56:49. > :56:53.national security checking, the Government will aim to complete the

:56:54. > :56:57.process as quickly as possible, "As you know, national security checking

:56:58. > :57:01.for the Saville quieny took two weeks to complete. It would be a

:57:02. > :57:06.plan and expectation it take no longer than this and we will look to

:57:07. > :57:10.complete the process very quickly", said the Prime Minister. "We need to

:57:11. > :57:16.do that for the families who are expecting that some closure will

:57:17. > :57:21.come." "This inquiry should have started many years before. On the

:57:22. > :57:25.debate I referred to on 31st October 2006, there was frustration then

:57:26. > :57:29.that it took so long to get in front of this House of Commons. At that

:57:30. > :57:37.point we used an Opposition day. Those were the time when SNP Plaid

:57:38. > :57:44.Cymru Opposition debates are few and far between. We are not like that

:57:45. > :57:48.now, Has my honourable friend considered the reputational damage

:57:49. > :57:53.done to the UK by the series of earlier delays and would he agree

:57:54. > :57:58.with me that if it is the case that as the EU referendum, which is

:57:59. > :58:01.causing this delay, then the reputational damage to the UK is in

:58:02. > :58:15.danger of becoming ridiculous? Inquiry I am grateful for that

:58:16. > :58:19.intervention. I said the UK risks becoming an international laughing

:58:20. > :58:23.stock by this infinite and eternal delay that is tied to this report.

:58:24. > :58:32.He is absolutely right in what he said. This delay is annoying many

:58:33. > :58:36.people, it is not to the satisfaction of the people who would

:58:37. > :58:44.concur with him about the EU referendum. One of my constituents

:58:45. > :58:47.said, to allow the EU referendum to get in the wake seems to be

:58:48. > :58:55.completely wrong and smacks of political and new friends that

:58:56. > :59:02.should not be taking place. Interestingly, the former Amber of

:59:03. > :59:07.the Foreign Affairs Committee, was Labour MP Andrew McKinlay, called

:59:08. > :59:13.for the publication of Chilcot and said it shouldn't get lost in the

:59:14. > :59:17.referendum because it would suit the security institutions for it to be

:59:18. > :59:20.lost in the flurry of the referendum campaign. That suffered at the

:59:21. > :59:24.beginning of May. That is when the report should be covered. We are

:59:25. > :59:30.looking here for government to keep its promise. We are looking for John

:59:31. > :59:36.Chilcote to keep his promise. The families certainly deserve that. I

:59:37. > :59:42.think the honourable member for being generous enough to give way.

:59:43. > :59:47.Some of us know John Chilcott and have worked with him in his previous

:59:48. > :59:53.roles. When he was appointed to do this enquiry was accused of being

:59:54. > :59:58.uncharitable. I said he wouldn't be independent or challenging. He

:59:59. > :00:02.perhaps is going to prove something different. In one road he did

:00:03. > :00:07.conduct, it was the review done after the Castlereagh Road had. What

:00:08. > :00:11.he did then was what we and my party predicted. He would come out with an

:00:12. > :00:16.outcome that would suit the security services that would be more about

:00:17. > :00:19.their interests. It shows this is a man well attuned and sensitive to

:00:20. > :00:24.the interests and demands of the security services. The idea he has

:00:25. > :00:30.written a report that will need serious national security checking

:00:31. > :00:36.is somewhat preposterous. Interesting words from the

:00:37. > :00:41.honourable member. We have two return to the words of the Prime

:00:42. > :00:46.Minister who said the saddle enquiry took two weeks to complete and we

:00:47. > :00:50.expect an indication that this will take no longer. It is the

:00:51. > :00:54.expectation of this chamber that the report will be published on the week

:00:55. > :00:58.beginning the 2nd of May. The lack of publication of this report has, I

:00:59. > :01:01.think, that the report will be published on the week beginning the

:01:02. > :01:03.2nd of May. The lack of publication of this report has, I think, but as

:01:04. > :01:05.uninformed with other engagements that have subsequently taken place

:01:06. > :01:11.since Iraq. Military action since Iraq has been a chaotic mess. That

:01:12. > :01:16.has been the case in the beer. We had a bombing campaign costing 13

:01:17. > :01:20.times more than was spent on the rebuilding of Iraq. Had Chilcott

:01:21. > :01:24.been republished, perhaps we would have the hard lessons laid in front

:01:25. > :01:29.of this in black and white which would hopefully guide and a

:01:30. > :01:31.government in the future planning any military adventures or

:01:32. > :01:36.interventions, that they plan for the peace afterwards, but they do

:01:37. > :01:42.not leave a vacuum or an opportunity for terrorists to move in and

:01:43. > :01:47.destabilise the state. Again, we are selling ourselves short selling

:01:48. > :01:52.those in other countries particularly short when this report

:01:53. > :01:55.was delayed in it lunch and has been eternally delayed in its

:01:56. > :02:04.publication. I think I want to finish today on the words of a woman

:02:05. > :02:08.I admire greatly, Rose Gentle from Glasgow, who is the mother of a

:02:09. > :02:14.Royal Highland Fusilier, Gordon Gentle, who was killed 12 years ago

:02:15. > :02:18.in Basra at the age of 19. She said she was disappointed by the latest

:02:19. > :02:22.news on the enquiry and thought it would be better sooner than this. We

:02:23. > :02:25.thought this enquiry would be sooner, he thought it would be

:02:26. > :02:29.covered by the end of the year because they have everything there.

:02:30. > :02:33.It is another let down. It is another few months to wait and

:02:34. > :02:36.suffer. That was set in October 2015, 15, nine years after the

:02:37. > :02:42.initial debate on Iraq in this place. I don't think brief parents

:02:43. > :02:47.should be waiting a week or a day longer beyond the first week of May

:02:48. > :02:56.2016 for the publication of the Chilcot report. I completely agree

:02:57. > :03:04.with the right honourable and gallant member. It is completely

:03:05. > :03:10.unconscionable to continue to delay the publication of this report.

:03:11. > :03:15.National security checking of the Iraq enquiry is holding up

:03:16. > :03:20.publication of the report I believe is critical to our national security

:03:21. > :03:24.because only by understanding how we got involved in this gigantic

:03:25. > :03:30.geostrategic error of an invasion can we learn the profound lessons

:03:31. > :03:36.for our political class, the military and establishment. I think

:03:37. > :03:42.this is about the whole mechanism of government. The subtext I think 40

:03:43. > :03:47.many of us in politics and the media is who might be damaged by the

:03:48. > :03:53.contents of the report. We play to the gallery. We love to play the man

:03:54. > :03:56.and not the wrecking ball that shattered security assumptions and

:03:57. > :04:01.the balance of power in the Middle East. Is not the real question the

:04:02. > :04:07.substance of the report and what answers it may give to how we manage

:04:08. > :04:11.to get embroiled in Iraq and perhaps provide -- pointers to the sister

:04:12. > :04:15.conflict in Afghanistan? A well intentioned but disastrous

:04:16. > :04:21.intervention in Libya and are clueless response to the rise of

:04:22. > :04:27.so-called Islamic State. 634 British troops and at least 150,000

:04:28. > :04:34.civilians were lost between them and in consequence of these I believe we

:04:35. > :04:38.face a far greater strategic threat from theological phosphors that we

:04:39. > :04:44.faced at 911. We might hope that when the report is published through

:04:45. > :04:48.the witnesses and access, we can begin the self examination of how we

:04:49. > :04:54.got ourselves into these waters and I believe that our ongoing failure

:04:55. > :05:00.is caused by the lack of effective political and military leadership.

:05:01. > :05:04.From what I have seen on the ground since becoming a member of

:05:05. > :05:13.Parliament in 2005 in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Libya, this week in

:05:14. > :05:21.Syria, I think that the phone monopoly of the government machine

:05:22. > :05:27.has become dysfunctional. Firstly, we have suffered from a narrowly

:05:28. > :05:33.focused class of political politicians who understand politics,

:05:34. > :05:38.leadership and who have almost no understanding of the complexities or

:05:39. > :05:44.realities on the ground. Secondly, we have ambitious civil servants who

:05:45. > :05:51.note that careers at fans by staying close to what the rest of the group

:05:52. > :05:54.thinks. Thirdly, we have military officers with a civil service

:05:55. > :06:02.mindset who have also learned that the right answer is we can do it,

:06:03. > :06:06.not we cannot do without... Finally, the experts who are ignored or who

:06:07. > :06:14.are marginalised to stop no experts were present at the ranch in America

:06:15. > :06:20.when Prime Minister Blair agreed to support a US led invasion of Iraq.

:06:21. > :06:25.Of course he was informed by the importance of keeping the US- UK

:06:26. > :06:30.alliance, but he didn't seem to make even the slightest attempt to stop

:06:31. > :06:38.his friend, President Bush, driving us drunk into Iraq. Blackcomb, from

:06:39. > :06:44.then, we needed to find reasons to go to Iraq. We created the infamous

:06:45. > :06:51.dossier in a late night essay crisis. In Downing Street, so close

:06:52. > :06:57.into the night did the work that they managed to read the bit from

:06:58. > :07:03.the top secret single source report about the missiles, but failed to

:07:04. > :07:10.read the comments from the analysts. What they fail to see here was her

:07:11. > :07:14.comment that there was no way that the missiles referred to could

:07:15. > :07:20.possibly still be in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Most of the public,

:07:21. > :07:24.as well as many people in Parliament, in good faith were

:07:25. > :07:28.convinced by the Prime Minister. Later, we convince ourselves that we

:07:29. > :07:33.were in Afghanistan to fight them over there so we didn't have two

:07:34. > :07:38.fight them over here. Several years ago, after I give a presentation to

:07:39. > :07:42.an immensely senior person in a previous government, he asked me,

:07:43. > :07:46.are you really saying that the Taliban threat to the UK? This

:07:47. > :07:51.reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference

:07:52. > :07:56.between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It almost beggars belief. A local

:07:57. > :08:01.xenophobic tribal traditional movement as against a death cult.

:08:02. > :08:07.The difference was, and I think he did not understand, but we cannot be

:08:08. > :08:11.too unfair on the politicians because they are sometimes not very

:08:12. > :08:16.well served by the civil servants. Throughout these waters there has

:08:17. > :08:20.been a tendency to push a good use of the culture, what General

:08:21. > :08:27.Petraeus describes as putting lipstick on pigs. We have all heard

:08:28. > :08:30.the mantras. We are making progress, there are some challenges, but

:08:31. > :08:38.overall we are really moving forward. The Secretary of State for

:08:39. > :08:41.Defence was in a briefing attended by a friend of mine, though he

:08:42. > :08:46.denies this, the Minister bind the table and said why have you not been

:08:47. > :08:51.telling me the truth? I did not know things were quite so bad. Another

:08:52. > :08:56.friend was astonished to find himself in a briefing in Basra when

:08:57. > :09:02.all those assembled were being told what they should and should not tell

:09:03. > :09:07.Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In a briefing in Helmand, the defence

:09:08. > :09:11.committee, which I then sat on, were told how brilliantly things are

:09:12. > :09:17.going and a few weeks later I was on a private trip to Afghanistan and

:09:18. > :09:23.the official in question pondered up to me in a bar and said I am really

:09:24. > :09:33.sorry for that briefing we give. The trouble is we just don't get

:09:34. > :09:36.promoted for telling the truth. I am enjoying his assorted speech but I

:09:37. > :09:41.would like him to confirm what he just said. That was expelled from

:09:42. > :09:46.the House forcing it some years ago that this story that those young

:09:47. > :09:50.people going to Afghanistan would actually stopping terrorism on the

:09:51. > :09:54.streets of Britain was on truth, that those people were deluded into

:09:55. > :09:58.conquer in the belief they were defending their families here and

:09:59. > :10:02.the only reason the Taliban are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan

:10:03. > :10:08.was because we were there. As soon as we came out they lost that

:10:09. > :10:10.interest. Can he say he thought that was the continuing perception of our

:10:11. > :10:19.soldiers for which many lost their lives? I entirely agree with them.

:10:20. > :10:27.The original invasion of Afghanistan was a highly effective Act and the

:10:28. > :10:32.Afghan people removed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban themselves. It was this

:10:33. > :10:39.disastrous new to implement that whipped up the insurgency and I will

:10:40. > :10:43.come to that in a minute if I may. So, people don't get promoted for

:10:44. > :10:48.telling the truth. When I first drafted this, accented to a well

:10:49. > :10:53.known and courageous BBC foreign correspondent and he e-mailed me

:10:54. > :10:56.back. He said it reminds me of being attacked for negative coverage that

:10:57. > :11:02.I put out in Iraq and Afghanistan by officials who later admitted either

:11:03. > :11:08.privately to me or in memoirs that things were actually worse than I

:11:09. > :11:13.was saying in my news report. With hugely honourable exceptions, the

:11:14. > :11:20.same is true of senior military officers. After a wrecking of

:11:21. > :11:26.Helmand in 2004, a military officer reported back to his bourse, a

:11:27. > :11:31.general, and the general ask them, but is the insurgency like in

:11:32. > :11:39.Helmand? The officer replied, there isn't one, but if you want one I can

:11:40. > :11:43.give you one. At the same time, the mission statement actually said that

:11:44. > :11:49.the military were to give a politically aware advice. The top

:11:50. > :11:54.brass volunteered the UK for Helmand and like Iraq, the short ministers

:11:55. > :11:58.that it was doable with the original force numbers and we heard exactly

:11:59. > :12:03.the same when it came to a lack of equipment. I remember military

:12:04. > :12:09.people reminding us in Afghanistan that we'd had enough helicopters to

:12:10. > :12:16.do the job, but if you weeks before the death by an improvised explosive

:12:17. > :12:20.device of people -- Trooper Joshua Hammond, Rupert wrote that he and

:12:21. > :12:25.his men were making unnecessary removes because of the lack of

:12:26. > :12:30.helicopters. He went on to say, this increases the Ie the threat and our

:12:31. > :12:38.exposure to it. A senior British general briefed us and for my head

:12:39. > :12:43.off in a meeting for being a naysayer. I went back to Afghanistan

:12:44. > :12:49.on a private trip and went to see him nervously and as I walked into

:12:50. > :12:56.his office I said to him, are we still winning? And he said to me, if

:12:57. > :13:02.we are I will be dead by the time we do.

:13:03. > :13:09.As a soldier I was in Iraq before the war in 1991 and in 2003 I found

:13:10. > :13:17.myself back on the ground, I'll never forget driving into my soul

:13:18. > :13:21.after the regime dissolved after that city before I is collapsed into

:13:22. > :13:28.anarchy and it was the first time as a journalist that I kept close to me

:13:29. > :13:33.a submachine gun. There were bodies on the streets, chaos and really

:13:34. > :13:38.nasty threatening environment. American jets were coming down low

:13:39. > :13:43.and fast noisily to intimidate. I went to the police station to find

:13:44. > :13:48.out where American troops were in the city and all these Saddam

:13:49. > :13:53.Hussein lookalikes were standing around and the police Brigadier

:13:54. > :13:57.General told those, when you fight the Americans can you please get

:13:58. > :14:03.them to come up here and give us our instructions, which is an astounding

:14:04. > :14:10.thing to do as the resume is effectively falling. -- regime. I

:14:11. > :14:13.went and found the Americans and I found the kernel and when I do my

:14:14. > :14:20.business with him I said by the way the Iraqi police general wants his

:14:21. > :14:23.instructions. The American said to me, you can tell him to go and

:14:24. > :14:30.something himself. It was extraordinary. Fourthly, we ignored

:14:31. > :14:35.other experts who could have helped others. Of all the people who knew

:14:36. > :14:40.anything about Iraq, did anybody actually suggest that it would be a

:14:41. > :14:43.good idea to dismantle Baathists like police officers from the

:14:44. > :14:47.various structures of the government? Would any expert of

:14:48. > :14:51.thought that was a good idea if asked? I don't know of anyone apart

:14:52. > :14:58.from general Tim Cross who thought about are responsible it is to the

:14:59. > :15:03.people of Basra after the invasion. In Afghanistan, the experts were

:15:04. > :15:07.consistently ignored. I was in 1984 there for my gap year before I went

:15:08. > :15:11.to university with the magenta Dean when there are fighting the Russians

:15:12. > :15:18.and though one listens to our officials who had run the trading

:15:19. > :15:24.programme for the Afghan resistance back then. No one listens to the

:15:25. > :15:31.senior ex-Mujahideen commanders who live in North London or suburbs of

:15:32. > :15:36.car. No one heard the concerns of the expert contractors to our

:15:37. > :15:40.foreign intelligence service who personally knew many of the Taliban

:15:41. > :15:47.leadership. No one spoke to the agronomists who have been working

:15:48. > :15:50.for decades in the Pashtun belt. Will my honourable friend agree with

:15:51. > :15:56.me that the criticisms he's absolutely rightly making at the

:15:57. > :16:00.door of the services are laid at the tops of the establishment Gretchen

:16:01. > :16:05.Mark I remember before the Iraq war a colleague about us who are serving

:16:06. > :16:13.in the planning section said I have never known a war in which the

:16:14. > :16:19.British officer class is less happy so somebody was asking questions and

:16:20. > :16:22.not getting answers. Absolutely. Forgive me for another anecdote. I

:16:23. > :16:27.remember having a barbecue in my garden in Gravesend for the officers

:16:28. > :16:30.of a regiment about go to Afghanistan and I asked the officer

:16:31. > :16:34.responsible for engagements when they got the Afghanistan, engaging

:16:35. > :16:40.the local community in Helmand province and asked how you would do

:16:41. > :16:46.it he had an on to cancer. 50 minutes later the kernel to me aside

:16:47. > :16:50.and said I will play the best way to influence the people in Helmand

:16:51. > :16:56.possibly towards us. It is not to get on the plane in the first place.

:16:57. > :16:59.-- positively towards us. No one listened the experts. The Pakistani

:17:00. > :17:05.is now a bit about Afghanistan and they know about the Taliban. The

:17:06. > :17:11.Russians do. But of course as ever we know it all. In Cabo I was

:17:12. > :17:15.sitting with a general who had looked after Helmand province for a

:17:16. > :17:21.couple of years after the Russians had left and I said, you must be

:17:22. > :17:25.being consulted the whole time by ice are. He looked down at as for

:17:26. > :17:26.mobile telephones and said no one has rung me. I am waiting for them

:17:27. > :17:42.to ring. I thank my good friend for letting

:17:43. > :17:51.me intervene. History tells us lessons. When the allies liberated

:17:52. > :17:56.selfie stage, -- south-east Asia, in order to maintain the safety and

:17:57. > :18:02.security of civilians distastefully but nonetheless they did it they use

:18:03. > :18:07.the Japanese army for security and that is a lesson which we should

:18:08. > :18:16.readily have understood when we went into Iraq after the war was

:18:17. > :18:22.apparently over. Thank you. To continue my theme about the

:18:23. > :18:26.inexperienced political class ignoring the experts, Britain's one

:18:27. > :18:34.ambassador who actually understood what was going on and expressed it

:18:35. > :18:41.to the politicians now works for HSBC. And Syria, we haven't taken

:18:42. > :18:47.the advice of some of the officials who have been deployed forward with

:18:48. > :18:50.the Syrian opposition as was and to argue that Isis is fundamentally

:18:51. > :18:59.apolitical counterterrorist problem, much less a military problem than it

:19:00. > :19:01.is a function of broken politics in the countries concerned. We have

:19:02. > :19:06.thrown ourselves behind an American led the literary strategy that until

:19:07. > :19:12.very recently threatened to turn the whole of Syria into hell. Iraq went

:19:13. > :19:17.wrong and the Nato deployment to Afghanistan cannot be counted as a

:19:18. > :19:20.success, nor can Libya, nor can Syria and nor can the sanctions

:19:21. > :19:33.being imposed on ordinary people in Syria today. I'm extremely grateful.

:19:34. > :19:36.I agree with much what he says and I particularly want to endorse what

:19:37. > :19:43.says about the military commanders, they do themselves, their country

:19:44. > :19:51.and this house no service by not telling us the truth. They need to

:19:52. > :19:57.speak truth to power. Can I say on Libya, the reason why we went into

:19:58. > :20:03.Libya was because Benghazi was about to be subjected to genocide. If we

:20:04. > :20:07.had not done so, we would have faced the criticism that we allowed

:20:08. > :20:12.thousands of innocent people to be destroyed. We were on the horn is

:20:13. > :20:15.wider than and I for one do not blame the primers for the decision

:20:16. > :20:20.he made. He was in a difficult position. I think we would have been

:20:21. > :20:26.in just a bad position now had Benghazi fallen. I was in Benghazi

:20:27. > :20:33.when those armoured vehicles that were hit right on the edge of the

:20:34. > :20:37.city well worn and I drove down to the front line and I agree with you.

:20:38. > :20:43.If those armoured vehicles got into town it would've been serious but to

:20:44. > :20:48.then proceed with Ray Gene change and -- regime change and where some

:20:49. > :20:56.of our officials didn't accept tribal issues to Libya. It was a big

:20:57. > :21:01.mistake and it's a mistake that the people of Libya are paying a price

:21:02. > :21:06.for as we speak. Overall, our approach since 911 has left our

:21:07. > :21:10.country facing much, much greater dangers. Neither Saddam nor the

:21:11. > :21:14.Caliban through so much as a petrol bomb the West and yet the images of

:21:15. > :21:20.Iraq and in fact Afghanistan and Libya and Syria on the websites of

:21:21. > :21:27.global jihad will have terrible consequences for our people. After

:21:28. > :21:30.the chemical outrages in Damascus, Parliament was asked to bomb the

:21:31. > :21:35.sadder Aegean, three years later, we were again asked to vote to bomb but

:21:36. > :21:39.this time the forces opposing the regime. I wonder how many of us in

:21:40. > :21:45.here have both voted to bomb the Syrian government and their

:21:46. > :21:48.opponents. It's little wonder especially after Iraq and

:21:49. > :21:51.Afghanistan that the public at don't have much confidence when ministers

:21:52. > :21:59.tell them that they deserve their backing. In conclusion, when

:22:00. > :22:07.Chilcott does eventually publish we need to scour his content in the

:22:08. > :22:12.hope that it might take ours to take more seriously the security of our

:22:13. > :22:18.people and move us away from this dreadful politics of career that has

:22:19. > :22:23.infected ours. For a country, Chilcott may well point to

:22:24. > :22:26.dysfunction rather bigger than Iraq. Rather closer to this chamber and

:22:27. > :22:32.Whitehall. We have do learn from our mistakes and we owe it to our own

:22:33. > :22:34.people and to the people of those countries where we have contributed

:22:35. > :22:46.to unimaginable insecurity. Thank you to the members who have

:22:47. > :22:53.managed to secure this important debate. It's a pleasure to follow

:22:54. > :22:58.the honourable member for Gravesend and I'm sure that had he been able

:22:59. > :23:02.to have the opportunity to give evidence to the inquiry am sure the

:23:03. > :23:08.final Reid will be more interesting than the one we are in the spacing.

:23:09. > :23:12.There is a great sense of anger and frustration and we have seen that in

:23:13. > :23:17.the chamber today and in the wider public over recent years following

:23:18. > :23:25.the Chilcott inquiry not being public so far and that anger and

:23:26. > :23:31.frustration is understandable. My own constituents in Dunfermline

:23:32. > :23:36.share this frustration and anger but also find the situation

:23:37. > :23:41.unacceptable. Six years on and still no report. Today I want to start my

:23:42. > :23:46.focus on the entirely predictable keep calm and carry on attitude and

:23:47. > :23:50.I'm sure the government thinks that has been a virtue but I think in

:23:51. > :23:55.this case that to heap and unacceptable the way upon

:23:56. > :24:01.unacceptable delay is not the way forward and they inform us that the

:24:02. > :24:04.final report will be heavily redacted and adds insult to injury

:24:05. > :24:14.especially to those family members who have lost loved ones in Iraq. It

:24:15. > :24:17.is a dredge will situation. The conclusion of Chilcott should be a

:24:18. > :24:25.chance the government to draw a line under Iraq and the Iraqi adventure,

:24:26. > :24:30.I should say the Iraqi misadventure. This is an opportunity to understand

:24:31. > :24:35.what went wrong, what is why we fell down this particular rabbit hole and

:24:36. > :24:39.a chance to find out why a UK strategy in the Middle East is so

:24:40. > :24:44.feckless that the government had no choice but to follow the United

:24:45. > :24:50.States down the rabbit hole. Instead we have this. Chilcott has become

:24:51. > :24:57.something of a corpse in the cupboard as the member for Penrith

:24:58. > :25:00.put if this time last year. We need to face up to Chilcott and the

:25:01. > :25:04.lessons that it may offer as an give us. Read to get on with

:25:05. > :25:11.understanding what the UK once. What are the strategic aims? Otherwise it

:25:12. > :25:16.will be condemned to living with the corpse in the covered and were still

:25:17. > :25:20.an ineffective foreign policy. It is this reality which leads us to the

:25:21. > :25:25.great journal foreign affairs to write that Britain is at risk of

:25:26. > :25:31.slipping into relevance. It's following policy is devised for

:25:32. > :25:37.specifically and a short-term outlook. Americans comment that the

:25:38. > :25:41.UK reside and not a global power. It is only last month that we witnessed

:25:42. > :25:47.the Foreign Secretary city in the chamber discussing the ceasefire in

:25:48. > :25:50.Syria and the Foreign Secretary was asked if he had made contact with

:25:51. > :25:56.his counterpart in Russia to find out more about what the implications

:25:57. > :26:00.of the ceasefire had meant. The Foreign Secretary replied that he

:26:01. > :26:03.had not made any contact with the security department in Russia and

:26:04. > :26:07.while we can criticise Russia for being isolationist we cannot fall

:26:08. > :26:14.into that same trap ourselves and the equally afflicted. I've seen

:26:15. > :26:17.this first hand. The defence like committee has recently undertaken an

:26:18. > :26:22.investigation into Russia and over the course of the inquiry at become

:26:23. > :26:27.increasingly clear that the symptoms of British strategic impotence are

:26:28. > :26:30.felt. It's almost as if the end the Cold War brought us to the point

:26:31. > :26:34.where we are still thinking about Russia just as we stop thinking

:26:35. > :26:37.about Russia and the Middle East. Instead of that you seriously about

:26:38. > :26:43.the role we can play in the world, the governments have decided to

:26:44. > :26:47.subcontract that to other allies who don't always have our best interests

:26:48. > :26:53.or share our values across the world. Let's break the habit of a

:26:54. > :26:58.lifetime. But it should make to amend will not do any longer. I

:26:59. > :27:01.asked the primers of two released Chilcott now, bury the court in the

:27:02. > :27:06.cupboard, let's learn the lessons of Iraq and get serious about Britain's

:27:07. > :27:10.role in the world. And Iraq itself, I was in Baghdad several weeks ago

:27:11. > :27:15.and the country is in a complete mess. It is a shambles. I can assure

:27:16. > :27:20.the house is far from being mission accomplished. If anything, it's

:27:21. > :27:29.quite the opposite. After 134,000 Iraqis of all deaths, 179 UK

:27:30. > :27:32.soldiers killed in action, 6000 30 wounded and who every day have to

:27:33. > :27:40.live with the consequences of their injuries, in short we took part in a

:27:41. > :27:44.war which destabilise the country, caused a civil war with neighbouring

:27:45. > :27:47.states, paved the way for brutal terrorist attacks across Europe and

:27:48. > :27:55.was a war with no real endgame inside. No endgame plan for. All

:27:56. > :27:58.those actions have huge repercussions from foreign policy,

:27:59. > :28:02.national security and the way the decisions to go to war are taken and

:28:03. > :28:10.this has eroded public trust in democracy itself.

:28:11. > :28:17.We remember the demonstrations that took part at the time against the

:28:18. > :28:22.war in Iraq. The people you in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. The

:28:23. > :28:29.government of the day field to field to listen to these remarks, these

:28:30. > :28:33.protests and the way the people of the country wanted us to progress.

:28:34. > :28:38.The current Prime Minister can take a different route. I say to him,

:28:39. > :28:43.this report does not happen to be written in Perl, it does not have to

:28:44. > :28:57.wait for the EU referendum, publish the in food. -- in food. I rise to

:28:58. > :29:06.speak and I didn't intend to because my very good, honourable and gallant

:29:07. > :29:11.friend has asked me to do so because he knows very well some of my

:29:12. > :29:20.experiences and in anecdotal form he asked me to speak. My theme for one

:29:21. > :29:30.or two minutes is how I believe that our senior military officers have

:29:31. > :29:39.become too politicised. In April 1993 I took soldiers into the

:29:40. > :29:46.village in central Bosnia. I identified a massacre where at least

:29:47. > :29:51.over 100 people had been killed. I decided that I had to inform the

:29:52. > :30:00.world. It was my duty under the Geneva conventions and I decided I

:30:01. > :30:05.would have a press conference and identify the people who I thought

:30:06. > :30:14.were responsible. They were special forces of the Bosnian army. Then I

:30:15. > :30:17.informed the Ministry of Defence which was kissing goodbye to a

:30:18. > :30:33.glorious military career by that action. I received, when I returned

:30:34. > :30:41.to my peers, a blistering telegram which demanded to know how I heard

:30:42. > :30:47.the authority to make such a statement. I was meant to be

:30:48. > :30:54.neutral, I was not to get involved in the war, I had ordered my men to

:30:55. > :31:04.open fire in defence of themselves and I was way out of line and I very

:31:05. > :31:13.much risk being sacked immediately. This was rather depressing for me.

:31:14. > :31:20.However, as a result of that press conference, front pages in this

:31:21. > :31:26.country carried the story. It was in the news, on the television, and on

:31:27. > :31:32.the radio. The reaction from the public and from politicians, members

:31:33. > :31:41.of This House and ministers, was unanimously supportive. The generals

:31:42. > :31:50.who had given me this very severe warning, they sent another signal.

:31:51. > :31:54.Totally ignoring the first one saying I had acted in the highest

:31:55. > :32:01.traditions of the British Army and I was to be congratulated. It was at

:32:02. > :32:08.this time that I thought, perhaps, or senior officers are too

:32:09. > :32:13.politically correct. Since that time, if you do get the Daily Mail

:32:14. > :32:16.and the Sun today, you will notice I have decided political correctness

:32:17. > :32:28.is something I do not particularly agree with. Thank you. I think we

:32:29. > :32:33.will all be gone off to see what is in The Papers as soon as this debate

:32:34. > :32:42.is over. Can I just thank the honourable gentleman for providing

:32:43. > :32:47.us with some very personal experiences that relate to the

:32:48. > :32:52.debate today. Can I also thank the other member for securing it. Today

:32:53. > :32:57.is perhaps not the day to go back over what happened back as far as

:32:58. > :33:02.2003 in relation to the Iraq war, though I will use this as an

:33:03. > :33:06.opportunity to remind people that back then when Charles Kennedy was

:33:07. > :33:11.the leader of the Liberal Democrats, we unanimously went through the

:33:12. > :33:17.lobbies to vote against the Iraq war. No exception to that and we did

:33:18. > :33:22.so on the basis that we thought the weapons inspectors should be given

:33:23. > :33:30.more time because there was no United Nations backing for that

:33:31. > :33:35.action. We all know that the Iraq war took place, a mother of members

:33:36. > :33:44.have referred to statistics, the 179 British service personnel killed and

:33:45. > :33:49.the 5000 casualties, the number of casualties amongst the Iraqis. There

:33:50. > :33:57.is a huge range varying from 150,000 up to as much as one million and we

:33:58. > :34:04.clearly never know. The enquiry was eventually set up to discuss this to

:34:05. > :34:11.look at the detail of this. In an earlier intervention from The Member

:34:12. > :34:17.For Perth, he is not in his place, he referred to the fact that he

:34:18. > :34:22.thought Tony Blair should have Iraq tattooed on his forehead. In

:34:23. > :34:27.reality, Tony Blair doesn't need to have that tattooed on his forehead

:34:28. > :34:34.because his visage is sufficient to remind people of his involvement and

:34:35. > :34:45.the action he took that led us into the war. The remit for the Chilcot

:34:46. > :34:49.Inquiry talks about examining our involvement in Iraq, including the

:34:50. > :34:52.way decisions are made to establish as accurately and reliably what

:34:53. > :34:59.happened and to identify lessons that can be learned. I think,

:35:00. > :35:03.clearly, there will be, to some extent, the focus on the individuals

:35:04. > :35:08.involved, but what worries me is that we are not yet in a position to

:35:09. > :35:13.identify the lessons that can be learned from the Iraq war because we

:35:14. > :35:18.have not yet had the Chilcot Inquiry published and since the Iraq war, we

:35:19. > :35:22.have had the first involvement in Libya where, if the Chilcot Inquiry

:35:23. > :35:27.had been published, I am sure it would have helped the decisions

:35:28. > :35:34.taken there. It wasn't available for Syria either. Maybe it will be

:35:35. > :35:40.available for any proposal for the UK Government to be involved in

:35:41. > :35:45.military action in Libya, further military action in Libya. I was

:35:46. > :35:51.worried that we might perhaps as a parliament the bounced or advised

:35:52. > :35:57.that she had noticed that there was going to be a debate on which the UK

:35:58. > :36:01.Government was going to be seeking permission from Parliament to get

:36:02. > :36:06.involved in further Libyan military operations. It does seem as if that

:36:07. > :36:10.possibility has receded, given that the Libyan government have stated

:36:11. > :36:14.that is not something that they are currently seeking. It may be

:36:15. > :36:22.something they seek in the future and I suppose what the Chilcot

:36:23. > :36:27.Inquiry might be able to do is to flag up the risks of mission creep.

:36:28. > :36:33.Especially in relation to Libya because it is not clear what it is

:36:34. > :36:37.clear that there are many UK drone strikes taking place in Syria and

:36:38. > :36:42.Iraq, it is not clear whether that is also happening in Libya and the

:36:43. > :36:49.risk of further mission creep associated with that. It would have

:36:50. > :36:52.been very helpful for us, as members of Parliament, who do not

:36:53. > :36:57.necessarily have access to the detailed briefings to have had the

:36:58. > :37:04.Chilcot Inquiry published and available for us to refer to. One of

:37:05. > :37:09.the things that worries me about the Chilcot Inquiry is that it has

:37:10. > :37:17.clearly gone on for a very long time but I don't think it is entirely

:37:18. > :37:21.clear why it has. Some have suggested it might have been a lack

:37:22. > :37:25.of staff though John Chilcot has said he thought that when he wanted

:37:26. > :37:30.the extra stuff he would get them so perhaps it wasn't a lack of staff.

:37:31. > :37:38.Some people have said it was down to the Maxwell isolation process. Other

:37:39. > :37:47.people say that is not the case. It is unclear what it is that has led

:37:48. > :37:52.to this report taking seven years so far to not be published. I hope, I

:37:53. > :37:56.am not calling for an enquiry into the enquiry, but I hope someone will

:37:57. > :38:01.make it clear precisely where the weaknesses with this model or so

:38:02. > :38:06.that if there is another future enquiry into our involvement in

:38:07. > :38:12.Libya, for instance, that we follow the right path and do not simply

:38:13. > :38:21.repeat the mistakes of the Chilcot Inquiry. For instance, I think some

:38:22. > :38:31.future enquiries would still allow people having access to documents to

:38:32. > :38:34.make comments on them, but maybe that has... I will give way in a

:38:35. > :38:41.second. Maybe they have taken advantage of that to the extent of

:38:42. > :38:49.the process. We simply do not know. On that point, people like myself

:38:50. > :38:54.who have written reports, in academia and the like, get puzzled

:38:55. > :39:01.at times with this process. It is one matter to send facts to be

:39:02. > :39:06.assured, to get people to comment on the accuracy, it is entirely another

:39:07. > :39:14.thing to give people the other opportunity to comment on the

:39:15. > :39:20.interpretation. I think the concern people would have is the question of

:39:21. > :39:23.whether this report can be truly independent if he allows people to

:39:24. > :39:36.challenge his own interpretations must remark I thank The Member For

:39:37. > :39:40.that intervention. Perhaps in future what he has suggested is what is

:39:41. > :39:45.required rather than a response to the interpretation. That may mean

:39:46. > :39:50.that in future, if that was the process that was followed we would,

:39:51. > :39:57.in fact see a much snappier report produced. I think we would all

:39:58. > :40:01.welcome that. The difficulty is that the longer this goes on, the weaker

:40:02. > :40:10.the memories of people are offered, the information that is available

:40:11. > :40:17.tends to disappear. We get a less and less clear picture as opposed to

:40:18. > :40:23.a clearer and clearer picture. Some have suggested that the love is in

:40:24. > :40:29.model might have been more appropriate for this. If you look at

:40:30. > :40:37.how long love took to report, it started in July 2011, the first

:40:38. > :40:42.report was published in 2012, 18 months in which it produced a 2000

:40:43. > :40:48.page document. It was eight snappier enquiry, albeit, I note that the

:40:49. > :40:52.debate today is not the subject of the Levenson enquiry, I would like

:40:53. > :40:55.to use this as an opportunity to suggest that the minister here

:40:56. > :40:59.should convey to be premised in this blog is possible terms that we do

:41:00. > :41:05.still expect the recommendations of the Levenson enquiry to be

:41:06. > :41:10.implemented. As we do love is in part two. That is not something that

:41:11. > :41:16.has been forgotten and will be allowed to go away. They beat the

:41:17. > :41:24.Levenson model does provide an answer in relation to Chilcot. The

:41:25. > :41:28.final thing that I would like to say really is that as others have

:41:29. > :41:34.indicated, we are now seven years on and we are still waiting to know the

:41:35. > :41:38.full facts about Iraq. The families of service personnel, the 179

:41:39. > :41:44.families affected by the deaths of our personnel need closure and they

:41:45. > :41:48.will not get it until everything is in the public domain. I hope as

:41:49. > :41:55.others have indicated that given the length of time and the

:41:56. > :42:00.Maxwellisation process that Arnie redactions, if there are any, will

:42:01. > :42:07.be extremely limited because it has already been through a very thorough

:42:08. > :42:10.sifting process that doesn't require any further deletions. And further

:42:11. > :42:14.slippage of the deadline will add insult to injury. That is why we

:42:15. > :42:18.need to know that the two week period referred to is on the

:42:19. > :42:23.government are going to want to. Nothing should be used as an excuse

:42:24. > :42:28.to develop further. Certainly, the suggestion that the EU referendum

:42:29. > :42:35.has some bearing on this is one I cannot fathom. I cannot see in what

:42:36. > :42:39.way that would affect this. It is time we had the Chilcot Inquiry

:42:40. > :42:46.published and it is time that people got the truth.

:42:47. > :42:58.Of like the star by congratulating my honourable friend for securing

:42:59. > :43:04.the debate. I want to begin by signalling my wholehearted support

:43:05. > :43:08.for the aspirations of the motion. The report be completed as soon as

:43:09. > :43:12.possible and that only two weeks after the report is submitted, it's

:43:13. > :43:19.published. We all want to see that. This week I attempted to table a

:43:20. > :43:26.question for defence questions and the timing of the inquiry and I was

:43:27. > :43:30.told that it wasn't appropriate because it was an independent

:43:31. > :43:34.inquiry, independent of government, and therefore it wasn't acceptable

:43:35. > :43:41.rushing to Aceh government and yet here we are debating today the

:43:42. > :43:44.timing. Because the intention of the government to delay the publication

:43:45. > :43:50.of the report until the 24th of June, the day after the referendum.

:43:51. > :43:53.I would like to respectfully submit that the government cannot have it

:43:54. > :43:59.both ways, publication of this report is clearly if it is to be

:44:00. > :44:02.delayed for appropriate security checking then it must be for

:44:03. > :44:06.political reasons and that's wholly unacceptable. The government needs

:44:07. > :44:11.to fundamentally rethink this if it's in its intention and for

:44:12. > :44:14.several reasons I want to cover the contribution today. Making the

:44:15. > :44:19.statement announcing the establishment of the inquiry on the

:44:20. > :44:23.15th of June 2009, Gordon Brown said the inquiry is essential because it

:44:24. > :44:27.will ensure that by learning lessons we strengthen the health of our

:44:28. > :44:31.democracy, our diplomacy and military. The inquiry will I stress

:44:32. > :44:41.be fully independent of government. So with the inquiry was essentially

:44:42. > :44:45.in for those reasons. The logical conclusion is that these lessons

:44:46. > :44:49.have not been learned. Our democracy, diplomacy and military

:44:50. > :44:52.are still not strengthened and the way in the way envisioned by Jordan

:44:53. > :44:56.Brown. The inquiry is not independent of government if the

:44:57. > :45:01.timing of this release is controlled by government and is intended to be

:45:02. > :45:06.used and if it is the case that it will be delayed until after the

:45:07. > :45:13.European referendum it's done so plainly in a blatantly political

:45:14. > :45:20.way. In terms of... I do know if it was the late. The period could be

:45:21. > :45:24.used to to say that this report should not be published, it's not

:45:25. > :45:29.something that I would accept. It was the honourable member who last

:45:30. > :45:38.year made the point extremely well, he said that purdah exist for a

:45:39. > :45:43.reason to prevent governments from using information to get a little

:45:44. > :45:47.advantage. I couldn't have said that that myself.

:45:48. > :45:54.It brings us the security checks. I accept there is a need to ensure

:45:55. > :45:57.that the report does not disclose information is detrimental to

:45:58. > :46:02.national security and that there are other images in this house that can

:46:03. > :46:11.suit and eyes sensitive matters and provide little oversight without

:46:12. > :46:16.national security and information being release publicly. As this

:46:17. > :46:23.report says, the primers the road to John the Chilcott last year about

:46:24. > :46:29.the checking expressing his wish to see this done quicker than two

:46:30. > :46:31.weeks. I hope nobody intends to suggest that all of a sudden

:46:32. > :46:34.national security checking will require precisely nine weeks and

:46:35. > :46:42.four days to complete rather than the two weeks mentioned in October.

:46:43. > :46:46.In conclusion, the second Iraq war cause death of a lease 134 Iraqi

:46:47. > :46:54.civilians and claimed the lives of 179 two soldiers. According to a

:46:55. > :46:59.casualty monitor, 5970 military injuries Jerry the war. This is a

:47:00. > :47:04.war which destabilise Iraq, precipitated an ongoing civil war

:47:05. > :47:06.and has left a fertile breeding ground for terrorist fanatics, it

:47:07. > :47:10.shattered the credibility of Western countries in the region and invites

:47:11. > :47:15.seemingly endless military interventions. The continuing delays

:47:16. > :47:18.in publishing the report are frankly an insult to the families of those

:47:19. > :47:24.service personnel killed in it the Iraqi conflict who have been made to

:47:25. > :47:30.wait seven years for a report anticipated to take one year. Those

:47:31. > :47:32.responsible for leading us into that illegal war have never been held

:47:33. > :47:38.accountable and the essential lessons have not been learned. It is

:47:39. > :47:40.high time they were because this episode is an international

:47:41. > :47:44.embarrassment. I commend this motion and call for the government to

:47:45. > :47:48.publish the report at the earliest possible opportunity.

:47:49. > :47:58.Let me thank all honourable members who have spoken so far including the

:47:59. > :48:03.member for housing who led the debate, teasing out the issues.

:48:04. > :48:06.You'll be aware as you will be aware that in a number of occasions since

:48:07. > :48:10.I was elected to this place last May I have raised the issue of delays to

:48:11. > :48:16.the publication of the Chilcott inquiry. In my maiden speech at that

:48:17. > :48:19.I was here to give a voice to the voiceless because too often the

:48:20. > :48:24.cynics who viewed this place view it as somewhere where people's voices

:48:25. > :48:29.aren't heard. Today I rise to express not only my view but the

:48:30. > :48:36.view of my constituents Mrs Rose Gentle who lost her son Gordon in

:48:37. > :48:44.the Iraq war in 2004. Gordon Gentle was 19 years of age. 19. Mrs Gentle

:48:45. > :48:50.and her family like many military families want answers to basic

:48:51. > :48:57.questions. Of those serving in our forces anorak provided with the

:48:58. > :49:02.proper equipment? If not why not? Who is responsible? Have documents

:49:03. > :49:09.been hidden and why have they been hidden? Why were they there in the

:49:10. > :49:15.very first place? For those military families like Rose Gentle and her

:49:16. > :49:19.family, this is reliving an inquest. Gordon Gentle 's case, the inquest

:49:20. > :49:26.was cancelled on three occasions and concluded in 2000 and nine. Last

:49:27. > :49:30.year, military families wrote to judge Mr Chilcott to say that they

:49:31. > :49:35.wish to see the report published by the end of 2015 and if not they

:49:36. > :49:44.would consider their legal options. The response, so Chilcott threatened

:49:45. > :49:48.them with legal costs if they took him to court. What a disgraceful and

:49:49. > :49:52.insensitive thing to say to military families who've lost loved ones.

:49:53. > :49:57.What kind of behaviour is it that threatens those who have lost those

:49:58. > :50:00.love ones? What kind of behaviour is it that threatens those who waited

:50:01. > :50:06.over a decade to find out what actually took place? Not just what

:50:07. > :50:11.Atchley took place but whether the military should have been there in

:50:12. > :50:19.the very first place. Rose Gentle 's view on the unnecessary delays is a

:50:20. > :50:25.simple one. What I've discussed. -- one of discussed. Delays caused by

:50:26. > :50:31.national security but military families views are all delays now

:50:32. > :50:38.are not trusted. For those out there, .... I thank the honourable

:50:39. > :50:45.gentleman. I think we can sum up what the military families feel by

:50:46. > :50:49.the fact that the longer this takes, the more jiggery-pokery they think

:50:50. > :50:54.is going on with actually the results of this inquiry and if we

:50:55. > :51:02.keep going on and on like this there will be total loss of face in what

:51:03. > :51:06.it produces. -- faith. I agree. I'm sure the families watching these

:51:07. > :51:09.proceedings will agree. The length of time this inquiry has taken has

:51:10. > :51:14.put undue pressure on military families. Families who want the

:51:15. > :51:18.truth, families who are proud of their love ones who served but

:51:19. > :51:22.disgusted with government and government process. That is the view

:51:23. > :51:28.of military families like Rose Gentle and the family. Failing that,

:51:29. > :51:31.the military government has not just been broken but shattered. A feeling

:51:32. > :51:36.that their loved ones have been buried twice. Once at their death

:51:37. > :51:43.and twice by bureaucracy and evasion. The Prime Minister wrote to

:51:44. > :51:46.Chilcott asking for a clear deadline and publication. The government

:51:47. > :51:50.cannot and should not allow itself to be seen to be backtracking on the

:51:51. > :51:57.Prime Minister's strong words. Further delays are not acceptable.

:51:58. > :52:02.Rose Gentle is an inspiration to many. She has done a lot of work to

:52:03. > :52:05.assist charities such as soldiers off our streets, a charity with an

:52:06. > :52:08.office in my constituency who look after soldiers who have returned

:52:09. > :52:14.from the front line and struggled to adjust to civilian life. Rose Gentle

:52:15. > :52:17.and family have a simple request. It is time for justice for the military

:52:18. > :52:23.families have lost loved ones serving in Iraq. The Chilcott Report

:52:24. > :52:32.must, must be published in the first week of May 2016.

:52:33. > :52:37.I'm delighted to be able to sum up on behalf of the Scottish national

:52:38. > :52:41.party benches in relation to this debate but before I go ahead I would

:52:42. > :52:51.like to commend the members who have brought this debate forward.

:52:52. > :52:57.Critically the member for Halton. Many of the members of these benches

:52:58. > :53:00.think this is an important issue if not in all constituencies across the

:53:01. > :53:05.United Kingdom and it is in Scotland. For a very specific

:53:06. > :53:09.reason, it is a real issue and the doors at the last general election.

:53:10. > :53:15.And mindful of my and warfarin for Glasgow North West who in a hustings

:53:16. > :53:21.with their predecessor last year asked the question why did you vote

:53:22. > :53:28.for the Iraq war? There and so was, I didn't. Hence my noble friend took

:53:29. > :53:34.out an iPad and looked up Hansard and the rest is on you Tube to

:53:35. > :53:40.watch. It would be embarrassing, it is embarrassing that that situation

:53:41. > :53:45.arose where an member of this house couldn't remember whether or not

:53:46. > :53:49.they voted to go to war or not. Frankly, it was a disgrace. Needless

:53:50. > :53:54.to say, that member no longer sits in this house for a reason because

:53:55. > :53:59.Iraq was a critical issue in Scottish politics over the last

:54:00. > :54:07.decade. I want to declare an interest, my brother is a reserve

:54:08. > :54:12.list and had a tour of duty in Iraq, he also had two tours of duty in

:54:13. > :54:19.Afghanistan. I used to write to him on the front line, I knew day in day

:54:20. > :54:23.out that I might never get a reply. I share the concerns of many members

:54:24. > :54:30.and those who represent military families, both officers and of the

:54:31. > :54:38.others personnel, this is a real issue which needs publication as

:54:39. > :54:46.promised. That goes back to the issue of Rose Gentle. They need

:54:47. > :54:53.those answers. Our progress, who would believed in any Western

:54:54. > :54:59.democracy that the a four letter word would have such a profound

:55:00. > :55:01.effect on domestic affairs and the so detrimental to international

:55:02. > :55:06.relations in this house with other countries? What are the same time

:55:07. > :55:11.paralysing any hope of moving and and learning from past mistakes. It

:55:12. > :55:17.is a word deeply embedded in our psyche and conscious and continues

:55:18. > :55:24.our work in what is an increasingly unstable and fractured world. The

:55:25. > :55:28.word is Iraq. In fabric 2003, I along with over 200,000 others

:55:29. > :55:33.marched through the city of Glasgow jointly over a million across these

:55:34. > :55:38.islands, the communities of these islands. To protest against an

:55:39. > :55:42.invasion of these sovereign nation of Iraq. Even then I would never

:55:43. > :55:47.have imagined that I'll be standing here to reiterate my belief as I

:55:48. > :55:51.marched then and the same belief I have today and the belief shared by

:55:52. > :55:55.the Scottish national party members and predominantly those who elected

:55:56. > :56:02.as that this was the wrong and an immoral choice. 13 years after a

:56:03. > :56:07.wrong forces were led into that illegal invasion and after seven

:56:08. > :56:12.years after the inquiry into the UK's Rolls established this party,

:56:13. > :56:18.Parliament and the community of these islands are still waiting to

:56:19. > :56:23.learn the true events of that catastrophic war which has had

:56:24. > :56:27.profound concert sequences and our international relations and

:56:28. > :56:32.critically on the millions of lives of our Armed Forces and the millions

:56:33. > :56:37.of lives across the globe. During the debate, I was looking up to the

:56:38. > :56:43.public gallery and I could see young and old of every generation, of

:56:44. > :56:53.every race and creed, and I thought to myself, the consequences of that

:56:54. > :56:56.decision to go to war and what I proceed on an illegal and alive has

:56:57. > :57:02.firm consequences not just on the public gallery here but the children

:57:03. > :57:10.who are being born today... In the future. Much has been made of the

:57:11. > :57:15.using of the Chilcott inquiry as stated in previous debate as a

:57:16. > :57:19.mirror reflecting on events leading up to invasion and the war. More

:57:20. > :57:22.importantly than the real opportunity is for the British

:57:23. > :57:30.government to change what it is doing. In a speech in the last

:57:31. > :57:37.session by the member for Penrith, he stated on this topic that this is

:57:38. > :57:47.our Vietnam. I would go even further back. This is a failure of

:57:48. > :57:51.diplomatic choices, I would consider it a modern-day Khartoum. We could

:57:52. > :57:54.go even further and let's look at the situation that we're been facing

:57:55. > :57:58.in Sudan and Egypt over many decades since then. It has been laying the

:57:59. > :58:02.ground for considerable misadventure in the years that lay ahead of it

:58:03. > :58:07.and I believe it will be misguided for us to look at this report from

:58:08. > :58:15.the classic imperialist viewpoint. One that lead is in the first place.

:58:16. > :58:21.Since being established, the Chilcot Inquiry has had a stranglehold on

:58:22. > :58:25.British diplomacy and military policy with everything being placed

:58:26. > :58:32.in limbo until the report is released. The longer we wait, the

:58:33. > :58:37.more unstable our position becomes and this has led successive British

:58:38. > :58:40.governments to content with the same field philosophy without ever

:58:41. > :58:44.learning from the mistakes were looking at a different set of

:58:45. > :58:49.responses to the situation in which we find ourselves. It would also be

:58:50. > :58:55.inexcusable for the British government, led by the Conservative

:58:56. > :58:59.and Unionist party to use internal European politics to delay its

:59:00. > :59:05.polyps -- publication and it would frankly be immoral. There doesn't

:59:06. > :59:10.seem to be any willingness from government to change their knee jerk

:59:11. > :59:15.and the active form of diplomacy. The situation requiring attention

:59:16. > :59:20.almost always ends in a bombing campaign which only adds fuel to an

:59:21. > :59:29.already planetary situation. We now have an inability to confront

:59:30. > :59:34.threats, whatever in a progressive manner due to a fear losing from

:59:35. > :59:41.Chilcot. The government has an inability to learn it military and

:59:42. > :59:43.diplomatic permits and it is undermining the diplomatic

:59:44. > :59:52.capabilities of the UK and reducing its ability to defend our economic

:59:53. > :59:58.and social interests. Senior diplomats, as mentioned by the

:59:59. > :00:02.honourable member pasture, are reduced to a romp, often moved very

:00:03. > :00:09.quickly unable to communicate in the local languages. More than once on

:00:10. > :00:15.the floor of the House in Chilcot debates, time and time again, the

:00:16. > :00:19.policy of having masked diplomatic service with ever dwindling

:00:20. > :00:23.expertise and reliance on local information undermines the idea that

:00:24. > :00:28.this place knows what is going on not only in Baghdad, but what is

:00:29. > :00:32.going on in Washington. As we clearly sought when a British Labour

:00:33. > :00:37.Prime Minister and the government walked hand in hand with the

:00:38. > :00:42.Republican president of the United States, leading our Armed Forces

:00:43. > :00:47.into war. I am not often for reporting things, but I thought I

:00:48. > :00:54.would go back a bit and see if I could get any expertise in how you

:00:55. > :00:56.use information from the art of War itself, an ancient Chinese

:00:57. > :01:00.publication and the general note there are two goes for intelligence

:01:01. > :01:07.activities. I will only quote the first. It is to obtain accurate,

:01:08. > :01:13.timely information about the objectives, resources and activities

:01:14. > :01:21.of competitors. In that basic, military process, we failed because

:01:22. > :01:23.we relied on the services of others while our closest Nato allies in

:01:24. > :01:29.Europe looked to their own services and came from the discerned opinion

:01:30. > :01:34.that an invasion of Iraq was wrong, both in ability and in the ability

:01:35. > :01:41.to extract ourselves from it. From that perspective, it looks as if our

:01:42. > :01:44.diplomatic policy is based on Google translate juju the limited number of

:01:45. > :01:49.senior diplomats with second senior diplomats with second

:01:50. > :01:58.language is relevant to their placement. From these benches, the

:01:59. > :02:03.idea of Mission accomplished, as mentioned previously by my

:02:04. > :02:09.honourable friend, is both a fallacy and a myth perpetuated by successive

:02:10. > :02:16.governments. They were hell bent on rewriting history. The maxim that

:02:17. > :02:22.the victors write history cannot be applied here. The war is not over.

:02:23. > :02:29.Further to the UK diplomatic efforts and the failure to publish Chilcot

:02:30. > :02:46.quickly reduces UK military leadership. The House is abdicated

:02:47. > :02:52.responsibility. We knew that Assad could not be toppled the government

:02:53. > :02:56.has pursued a military programme but this is not only the Armed Forces in

:02:57. > :02:59.a perilous position but also civilians. This policy failure is

:03:00. > :03:02.the price the United Kingdom of the price the United Kingdom of

:03:03. > :03:05.Great Britain and Northern Ireland is paying for Iraq and it is one in

:03:06. > :03:11.which the communities of these islands will pay for years to come.

:03:12. > :03:16.It is unforgivable. Even when published, as surely it must be in

:03:17. > :03:20.the time frame set out by the Prime Minister, Chilcot will not reflect

:03:21. > :03:28.the entire story. I was grateful that the gallant members rose to

:03:29. > :03:31.address the House because they reflected, I think, some element of

:03:32. > :03:37.the lived experience of military service personnel. Chilcot is more

:03:38. > :03:41.than just an examination of government policy or an impact on

:03:42. > :03:47.international relations, it is a real and personal goal for those

:03:48. > :03:51.services -- the families of service personnel who lost their lives.

:03:52. > :03:54.These families have lived the Iraq war every day since the bombs were

:03:55. > :04:00.dropped and everyday the evidence this enquiry was gathered. We want

:04:01. > :04:08.closure. I want to print my comment to an end because I am conscious of

:04:09. > :04:12.time. We as parliamentarians and representatives of these people who

:04:13. > :04:16.have said this to this place have a duty of responsibility to ensure

:04:17. > :04:20.that decisions made about war and peace are open and transparent and

:04:21. > :04:25.we recognise that armed services personnel know that they might not

:04:26. > :04:30.come back. That is the danger of being in the armed services. That is

:04:31. > :04:35.not the point. We do not want them to go to war if it is only goal and

:04:36. > :04:40.if it is a bad that automatic choice for the country. How can we carry on

:04:41. > :04:44.this process if we are denied the opportunity to read a report on a

:04:45. > :04:48.war that continues to impact the security of this political state?

:04:49. > :04:55.The prime ministers must say true to his word when a two weak clearance

:04:56. > :04:59.period allowed for the report to be published at the start of May. Any

:05:00. > :05:03.further delay will not be acceptable to the benches of the Scottish

:05:04. > :05:06.National Party or to our constituents and I am sure, as I

:05:07. > :05:12.have heard from honourable members across the House today, it will not

:05:13. > :05:15.be acceptable to them and to Parliament itself, but critically,

:05:16. > :05:28.to those who served the Crown abroad and to those who lost their lives.

:05:29. > :05:32.We certainly welcome this debate. Our thanks should be recorded to

:05:33. > :05:37.those members from different political parties who have put their

:05:38. > :05:44.names to the motion we are debating this afternoon. I think we have had

:05:45. > :05:47.a good debate this afternoon. It is a serious issue which not only

:05:48. > :05:53.exercise is the minds of members in the souls of many people in the

:05:54. > :05:56.country as well. I think that in different ways, the concerns of so

:05:57. > :06:05.many people in our country have been well expressed. As has been said, it

:06:06. > :06:11.was later to set up the enquiry in July 2009 when Gordon Brown was pro

:06:12. > :06:17.Minister. I hear what members have said about how such an enquiry

:06:18. > :06:24.should be conducted but I would make the point that it was genuinely

:06:25. > :06:30.thought that the enquiry should only begin once all British combat troops

:06:31. > :06:35.had left Iraq. To be honest, I remain convinced that that was the

:06:36. > :06:44.right course of action to take at that time. Is he aware that his

:06:45. > :06:47.right honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, took a different

:06:48. > :06:59.view and voted with us in court motion?

:07:00. > :07:08.I willingly acknowledge that this issue is open to discussion and

:07:09. > :07:12.judgment, but at that time that was our judgment and I think it was

:07:13. > :07:19.probably the correct judgment to make. The important thing with

:07:20. > :07:26.stress is that the Labour Party did not expect, at that time, for this

:07:27. > :07:32.report, as it will be, would take seven years to complete. That is

:07:33. > :07:39.completely unacceptable and very difficult to justify or understand.

:07:40. > :07:47.We, on this side of the House, what a report published, in a food, as

:07:48. > :07:52.soon as is practicable. We need to recognise at the same time that if

:07:53. > :07:57.the report is to have integrity when it is published, it needs to be

:07:58. > :08:02.recognised as an independent report. It would be wrong, therefore, for

:08:03. > :08:08.the government or individual politicians to try to influence what

:08:09. > :08:16.I am sure will be an objective report and assessment. However, as I

:08:17. > :08:20.say, if there is cause for concern, but the report is taking so long on

:08:21. > :08:25.the latest delay we are told is caused by the need for security

:08:26. > :08:33.checking. We understand that there needs to be security checking. Sir

:08:34. > :08:41.John Chilcot explained clearly in his letter to the Prime Minister why

:08:42. > :08:44.that should be. He said, and the court, national security checking is

:08:45. > :08:50.distinct from the process of declassified material for disclosure

:08:51. > :08:56.in the enquiry. Its purpose is to ensure the governmentobligations and

:08:57. > :09:00.further protection of national security will not inadvertently be

:09:01. > :09:05.breached the publication of the enquiry report as a home. I think

:09:06. > :09:12.that makes a great deal of sense and they do not think many people would

:09:13. > :09:20.object to that. It is noteworthy, I would suggest, that Prime Minister,

:09:21. > :09:24.in his letter to Sir John, dated the 29th of October, which he willingly

:09:25. > :09:34.consented for it to be published, said, as follows, and I quote in

:09:35. > :09:38.relation to national security checking, government will aim to

:09:39. > :09:43.complete the process as quickly as possible. As you know, national

:09:44. > :09:49.security checking of the South enquiry took two weeks to complete.

:09:50. > :09:54.It would certainly be our plan and expectation to take no longer than

:09:55. > :09:58.this and we will look to complete the process more quickly. That is

:09:59. > :10:04.what the Prime Minister said. That he was more than happy to make

:10:05. > :10:09.public. So I am concerned that we are where we are today and I look

:10:10. > :10:15.forward to hearing exactly what the Minister is to say in response to

:10:16. > :10:24.the debate as a whole and my specific question of what is the

:10:25. > :10:29.date for publication? I conclude by reiterating what a number of members

:10:30. > :10:34.have said already in this debate. It is important to have this report

:10:35. > :10:40.published soon for two essential reasons. The first reason is for us

:10:41. > :10:46.all, collectively, to learn the lessons of Iraq. Lessons have to be

:10:47. > :10:53.learned about what happened in the run-up to the war, during the war

:10:54. > :10:58.itself and also, I think, once the war had concluded. I remember going

:10:59. > :11:07.to Washington and having a meeting in the Pentagon and, very pointedly,

:11:08. > :11:12.before the war actually commenced, I asked a five star general what the

:11:13. > :11:18.United States planned for in terms of reconstruction and rehabilitation

:11:19. > :11:26.after the war. He said that is not our concern. Our job is, and I

:11:27. > :11:30.quote, to kick as and get out. That is crudely put, but unfortunately,

:11:31. > :11:38.that was the attitude and the actions of the American led

:11:39. > :11:41.coalition. I have to say that in my discussions with military personnel

:11:42. > :11:48.in this country, the attitude was quite different, but to be blunt,

:11:49. > :11:51.Britain was a very junior partner. When there was that kind of

:11:52. > :11:57.mentality amongst the Americans then I think that what has happened since

:11:58. > :12:06.was almost inevitable. Lessons have two be learned from this situation

:12:07. > :12:09.that we saw. Secondly, I think it is also important that we recognise

:12:10. > :12:16.that we need to have openness and closure for the families of all

:12:17. > :12:21.those British soldiers who so gallantly give their lives for this

:12:22. > :12:25.country. We have a debt to them and it is very important that a clear

:12:26. > :12:31.message goes out from This House that we want to see this report see

:12:32. > :12:37.the light of day, be debated, be published as soon as is practical.

:12:38. > :12:44.With those few words, I look forward to the Minister's response.

:12:45. > :12:52.Can start by joining the chorus of thanks to the backbench committee

:12:53. > :13:01.and my friend for Halton and the others on all sides, some with

:13:02. > :13:04.personal experience of serving their country in the Armed Forces who have

:13:05. > :13:09.contributed jury in the course of the debate. This could not be a more

:13:10. > :13:13.serious and more important issue. There's a number of colleagues who

:13:14. > :13:17.have said this on about how we take the country to war, whether we take

:13:18. > :13:20.it to war and whether or not we have done it in the right way in the

:13:21. > :13:26.past, even for those of us who were not here when the debate and the

:13:27. > :13:33.vote were held, it could not be a more important and serious issue for

:13:34. > :13:35.us all to be addressing. There is a thirst not just in the chamber but

:13:36. > :13:45.across the country for accountability, closure and lessons

:13:46. > :13:52.to be learnt. While I won't try your patients by going over some of the

:13:53. > :13:57.history of the war itself, what I will try and do his address

:13:58. > :13:59.questions to be raised during the debate and specifically posed about

:14:00. > :14:10.what happens from now onwards in order to get this report out as soon

:14:11. > :14:13.as we reasonably can. I don't... I wonder whether he is able to give us

:14:14. > :14:19.an undertaking that the government will implement any recommendations

:14:20. > :14:23.that come out of Chilcott which improve the transparency of the

:14:24. > :14:28.decision-making that is involved before we commit the country to

:14:29. > :14:34.going to war. It would be premature for any of us to prejudge the result

:14:35. > :14:38.of the inquiry but I am absolutely certain that we will all on all

:14:39. > :14:41.sides of the house and more broadly looked extremely carefully at the

:14:42. > :14:45.conclusions and there will be a great number of lessons to be

:14:46. > :14:48.learned. In line with the timetable set out by Sir John Chilcott in his

:14:49. > :14:53.letter to the Prime Minister last October which a number of colleagues

:14:54. > :14:57.have referred to, we are expecting the enquiries report to be ready for

:14:58. > :15:02.national security checking in the week beginning the 18th of April,

:15:03. > :15:07.sometime next week. Once Sir John indicator that is the case, the work

:15:08. > :15:13.will begin. As a Prime Minister promised, it will take no longer

:15:14. > :15:20.than two weeks. Once it is done, the inquiry will propel the report for

:15:21. > :15:25.printing publication. I should make clear that at that stage even when

:15:26. > :15:28.the national security checking process is complete, the report will

:15:29. > :15:31.still be in Sir John Chilcott's hands and will not be released the

:15:32. > :15:36.government until everything is ready. The inquiry has said that it

:15:37. > :15:42.will complete the remaining workers service possible and Chilcott

:15:43. > :15:47.indicated in his letter that he expects publication in June or July

:15:48. > :15:51.this year. I would like to provide more detail on what national

:15:52. > :15:53.security checking involves to reassure colleagues about what will

:15:54. > :15:57.happen because there have been a number of concerns raised about what

:15:58. > :16:02.might happen and what might not in that process. The national security

:16:03. > :16:06.checking is a legal obligation and a well-established standard process

:16:07. > :16:09.for enquiries considering sensitive material will stop at the same

:16:10. > :16:14.process used in extremely sensitive reports in the past including those

:16:15. > :16:19.into the bloody Sunday, Rosemary Nelson enquiries and reports to name

:16:20. > :16:23.just a few. I'm sure everyone will agree that the report must not

:16:24. > :16:26.compromise national security or breach article two of the European

:16:27. > :16:32.Convention on Human Rights by putting the safety of individuals at

:16:33. > :16:37.risk. It a limited process with a narrowly defined remit focus solely

:16:38. > :16:43.on ensuring the enquiries report does not put lives at risk. By

:16:44. > :16:47.making these extremely marrow and clear terms of reference, public

:16:48. > :16:51.here today I want to reassure everybody here and in Parliament and

:16:52. > :16:56.anywhere else that it will not and cannot be used to redact or censored

:16:57. > :16:59.material that does not need to be secret or which might prove

:17:00. > :17:05.embarrassing to ministers or officials from the time covered by

:17:06. > :17:10.the inquiry. I'm also pleased to inform the house that I understand

:17:11. > :17:13.the inquiry team expects to announce a firmer publication date soon after

:17:14. > :17:21.the national security checking process is complete which may answer

:17:22. > :17:26.the concerns which have been raised. Chilcott make clear in his letter to

:17:27. > :17:32.the primers of the genie is complete steps after security checking after

:17:33. > :17:35.he can -- before he can hand it to the government for publishing. The

:17:36. > :17:39.report is very large, over 2 million words and something like three or

:17:40. > :17:43.four times the size of war and peace and will be accompanied by many

:17:44. > :17:48.hundreds of documents. Due to its size, it'll take a number of weeks

:17:49. > :17:52.to for publication under Chilcott 's control, so John has published his

:17:53. > :17:57.team and they will complete the worker assesses possible. I shall

:17:58. > :18:00.also reassure the house that I checked and senior officials at

:18:01. > :18:05.Cabinet Office and be reassured that there is nothing in the wills of

:18:06. > :18:08.purdah for the EU referendum that would provide a reason to delay the

:18:09. > :18:14.publication of Sir John's report once he delivers it to the

:18:15. > :18:19.government. Can I finish this point? We will publish the report as soon

:18:20. > :18:25.as it is delivered to others in its final form by the inquiry team

:18:26. > :18:34.whenever that may be. I'm grateful to my friend for assisting us on

:18:35. > :18:42.this but the problem is so John Chilcott going to push this through

:18:43. > :18:47.and have the work done to create is large piece of work being done? In

:18:48. > :18:52.other words, will we only need to have a delay for the Prime Minister

:18:53. > :19:00.examining it or will there be further delays? What am trying to

:19:01. > :19:02.make clear is that the Prime Minister pledged that the

:19:03. > :19:05.government's contribution which is national security checking will be

:19:06. > :19:11.done in two weeks or less and we will deliver on our pledge. We do

:19:12. > :19:15.not at that point have control of the ball, it is still in so John

:19:16. > :19:20.Chilcott 's hands, he is completely work and I'm sure he will listen to

:19:21. > :19:24.the tone and tenor of the debate here and you will understand the

:19:25. > :19:29.thirst to see the results of his work. The frustration that it's

:19:30. > :19:32.taken so long but we are in his hands. It is an independent report,

:19:33. > :19:37.in needs to be objective and independent from government and we

:19:38. > :19:40.are in his hands as to the remainder of the work in this be done but I

:19:41. > :19:43.can promise and the government's on the view that we said we would get

:19:44. > :19:48.the checking done within two weeks and we will. I want to reassure the

:19:49. > :19:52.many colleagues and all sides of the house who I know have concerns about

:19:53. > :19:56.the interests of the families of service personnel who were killed or

:19:57. > :20:01.injured in the war. We all will be discussing these issues with the

:20:02. > :20:03.inquiry after the checking is completed but I understand the

:20:04. > :20:07.inquiry room making suitable arrangements for families around the

:20:08. > :20:14.date of publication. In conclusion, I am grateful to all honourable

:20:15. > :20:19.members who have contributed today to this debate. I think we agree on

:20:20. > :20:23.the need for the report be published as soon as possible. I'm sure we all

:20:24. > :20:27.appreciate as well the wishes of the families involved to understand why

:20:28. > :20:36.and how decisions were taken in any lessons that need to be learned.

:20:37. > :20:41.This is the inquiry looking at complex incidents over a nine-year

:20:42. > :20:44.period which evoke strong feelings on all sides of the debate. It is

:20:45. > :20:51.vital the inquiry completes its work on the timetable that was let out

:20:52. > :20:54.and then at last we will have the full independent heavyweight

:20:55. > :21:00.evidence -based report which events of this importance demand.

:21:01. > :21:03.Parliament, the families of service personnel killed and injured in the

:21:04. > :21:09.war and the country as a whole deserve nothing less.

:21:10. > :21:16.It's been a good debate. I think every speech given has been

:21:17. > :21:21.impressive, well-informed, passionate. There are three reasons

:21:22. > :21:27.are Chilcott matters. One is learning lessons, one is holding

:21:28. > :21:30.people to account and one is giving closure to those who have suffered

:21:31. > :21:41.the loss of their nearest and dearest. And want to say through the

:21:42. > :21:46.Minister to John Chilcott, June and July is incomprehensible and

:21:47. > :21:51.unacceptable. In the gallery is Peter whose son Sean died 13 years

:21:52. > :21:56.ago in service of his country. He represents in my mind the 179

:21:57. > :22:04.families who've lost sons, daughters, bothers, sisters,

:22:05. > :22:09.husbands, love ones, wives and in some cases mothers and fathers and

:22:10. > :22:15.we owe them a debt. We call ourselves honourable, right

:22:16. > :22:19.honourable sometimes gallant, this is a matter of honour. Let's give

:22:20. > :22:25.that closure to those families. I beg to move. The question is as on

:22:26. > :22:31.the order paper as many as are voting say I've. Of the country

:22:32. > :22:37.know. The eyes have it. The eyes have it. We come to the debate and

:22:38. > :22:41.diversity in the BBC. Mr David Lambie.

:22:42. > :22:50.I beg to move that the motion is on the order paper related to diversity

:22:51. > :22:53.in the BBC. I am grateful to the backbench business committee for

:22:54. > :22:59.allowing me to bring this motion today and also to my colleagues for

:23:00. > :23:02.Maidstone and the wheeled and the member for East Renfrewshire for

:23:03. > :23:07.co-sponsoring this debate. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have

:23:08. > :23:11.met and spoken to many people both black and white to work in our

:23:12. > :23:14.creative industries, they do an extraordinary job, our creative

:23:15. > :23:17.industries have an envied international reputation and I'm

:23:18. > :23:24.acutely aware that this is the first time in the history of the BBC that

:23:25. > :23:30.matters of diversity have been debated on the floor of this house.

:23:31. > :23:33.This is certainly not a new issue. I must begin by acknowledging those

:23:34. > :23:36.who been calling for greater diversity in the arts and on

:23:37. > :23:42.television for many years. Can I first lived the work that my good

:23:43. > :23:46.friend Lenny Henry has done back in 2013, he called me up to help him as

:23:47. > :23:53.he began to think about the issues in a deeper way. In 2014, he set out

:23:54. > :23:58.his plan for the BBC to set aside money for black, Asian and my

:23:59. > :24:04.minority ethnic shows. Earlier this year Idris Elba spoke of the

:24:05. > :24:08.disconnect between the real world and the TV world and an even bigger

:24:09. > :24:16.gap between people who make TV and people who watch TV. I would like to

:24:17. > :24:21.pay tribute to the Minister of State for culture and digital economy who

:24:22. > :24:25.I see in his place, he has been a champion of diversity in the media

:24:26. > :24:30.cheering his six years in post. I absolutely agree with his comments

:24:31. > :24:34.last week on Channel 4 News that the current position diversity across

:24:35. > :24:40.our broadcasters is unacceptable and that more progress is needed. He has

:24:41. > :24:47.helped both our broadcasters and the wider arts and culture sector to the

:24:48. > :24:50.fire on this issue and I am grateful to that. On this issue, this

:24:51. > :25:01.afternoon, there is very little between us. Let me be clear, from

:25:02. > :25:06.the outset, firstly, diversity is of course not only an issue strictly

:25:07. > :25:08.about black and minority ethnic individuals. There is still

:25:09. > :25:17.significant work to be done to improve the representation of women,

:25:18. > :25:19.significant work to improve the represents nation of lesbian, gay

:25:20. > :25:23.and transgender individuals and people with disabilities within

:25:24. > :25:31.broadcasting and across our public life. It is also right to say that

:25:32. > :25:35.class and social mobility play a role in representation across the

:25:36. > :25:41.BBC and I'm quite sure there are colleagues in this house concern to

:25:42. > :25:43.that despite some progress there is a north-south providing England and

:25:44. > :25:49.representation of the depth and range of voices in the north of this

:25:50. > :25:53.country particularly, there is still some way to go. Secondly diversity

:25:54. > :25:58.is an issue across the whole of the media sector, not just in

:25:59. > :26:02.broadcasting and certainly not just within the BBC. From Fleet street

:26:03. > :26:07.Hollywood, there are many more rivers to Cross. So the universities

:26:08. > :26:11.latest survey conducted just last month found that British journalism

:26:12. > :26:21.and is an industry as a whole is 94% white. There was not a single PAM E

:26:22. > :26:26.face along the entire list in the Oscars. In 2006 representation of

:26:27. > :26:34.PAM E people in the creative industries that 7.4% yet in 2012 it

:26:35. > :26:38.fell to 5.4% in television it fell from 9% to 7%. It going in the wrong

:26:39. > :26:44.direction. Directors UK have said that the number of black and Asian

:26:45. > :26:53.minority ethnic directors working in UK TV is critically low. A sample of

:26:54. > :26:58.55,000 episodes drawn from 540 titles found that 1.29% programmes

:26:59. > :27:04.were made by black, Asian or minority ethnic directors. In some

:27:05. > :27:08.areas of course, period dramas, talk shows and poll shows and sketch show

:27:09. > :27:13.is not a single episode has been made by a black Asian or minority

:27:14. > :27:18.ethnic director. This is not just not good enough in 2016. We are

:27:19. > :27:24.privileged in this country to enjoy so much public broadcasting. That

:27:25. > :27:32.goes beyond the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel five, S4 C and UTV all have

:27:33. > :27:36.within them a public service broadcasting remit. Operating for

:27:37. > :27:41.the public benefit, rather than purely for commercial purposes and

:27:42. > :27:52.taking together they account for 70% of TV watched in the UK. I give way.

:27:53. > :28:01.I would like to support his argument by pointing out that one of the

:28:02. > :28:07.opportunity is given, tremendous talent can come forward and good

:28:08. > :28:09.programmes are made. The point he is speaking is if the talent was

:28:10. > :28:16.available to others it would be used. He is absolutely right. We

:28:17. > :28:21.have got to be on the point of saying the talent is not there can

:28:22. > :28:28.we do some training? It can't exist. Can we now bring it forward and get

:28:29. > :28:32.the change that is required. One of the central statutory

:28:33. > :28:36.responsibilities of public service broadcasters is to ensure that the

:28:37. > :28:39.diversity of the UK is reflected in their output. They must broadcast

:28:40. > :28:45.programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of immunities in the

:28:46. > :28:51.UK. Off, have made it clear that all public service broadcasters must do

:28:52. > :28:56.more in diversity. The latest research found that 26% of black

:28:57. > :29:02.viewers saw people from black ethnic groups on TV daily. Over half of

:29:03. > :29:05.black viewers feel both underrepresented and unfairly

:29:06. > :29:10.portrayed across public service broadcasting. 55% of viewers from a

:29:11. > :29:16.black group felt that were too few people from black ethnic groups on

:29:17. > :29:24.TV and 51% felt that black Asian and minority people are shown negatively

:29:25. > :29:29.on TV. Let me be clear, I want to absolutely say categorically as I

:29:30. > :29:37.turned specifically to the BBC that since its inception, like home

:29:38. > :29:42.borough, the BBC has proved its worth as a national broadcaster

:29:43. > :29:48.quality, depth and breadth of its output. It's great programmes bring

:29:49. > :29:51.the nation together, it has outstanding journalism and its

:29:52. > :29:57.online offering has seen the BBC continue to flourish and service

:29:58. > :30:01.audiences in the digital age. The BBC has also made significant

:30:02. > :30:07.strides in reflecting the increasing diversity of Britain. In 1964 the

:30:08. > :30:11.BBC admitted the ground breaking documentary, the colony, about West

:30:12. > :30:15.Indian immigrants in Birmingham. In 1967, rainbow city was the first

:30:16. > :30:20.drama to see a black man in a leading role. The decision number of

:30:21. > :30:28.black actors and I was growing up but Grange Hill at one and I was

:30:29. > :30:35.grateful for him. I remember my restrict reading the news. I

:30:36. > :30:40.remember Diane Louise Jordan presenting blue Peter for the first

:30:41. > :30:45.time as I made my way to university, not to mention predictions like

:30:46. > :30:53.black Britain, the Lenny Henry show, goodness gracious me. Seeing black

:30:54. > :30:56.faces on the BBC, the national broadcaster, helped show the black

:30:57. > :31:00.community that they belong and they are part of the social fabric of the

:31:01. > :31:05.nation. The BBC is the cornerstone of public service broadcasting in

:31:06. > :31:09.our contract. It is our most important cultural institution. Most

:31:10. > :31:18.of all it is the recipient of huge amounts of public money, receiving

:31:19. > :31:24.3.7 billion from the licence fee. Tony Hall, the director-general, has

:31:25. > :31:29.admitted that white this is a great challenge, the BBC must take the

:31:30. > :31:31.lead because of its unique funding and the responsibility to licence

:31:32. > :31:40.fee payers that comes with this funding. Let me be categorical, I am

:31:41. > :31:47.a friend of the BBC. I love it. Today, remarks are strong because I

:31:48. > :31:50.think my friend is in trouble. Too many people from ethnic minority

:31:51. > :31:55.pupils working in the organisation have contacted my office over the

:31:56. > :32:00.last few weeks to say that they cannot speak up because they do not

:32:01. > :32:05.want to be labelled a troublemaker. I have no problem at being called a

:32:06. > :32:12.troublemaker and that is why I and so many colleagues are in This

:32:13. > :32:20.House, to speak up on their behalf. Between 1999 and the enquiry into

:32:21. > :32:27.the future of the BBC back in 2014, 15 years, the BBC ran 29 initiatives

:32:28. > :32:34.aimed at black and ethnic minorities, but the situation is

:32:35. > :32:38.still not improving. In September 1999 they published a statement of

:32:39. > :32:43.promises promising to reflect the diversity of the UK. They published

:32:44. > :32:48.a cultural diversity action plan, promising corporation would reflect

:32:49. > :32:52.diversity in its programmes. They set up a new recruitment agency to

:32:53. > :32:57.reach out to different communities. A mentoring programme. A development

:32:58. > :33:01.scheme enabling staff from when ethnic binaries to compete for

:33:02. > :33:07.senior positions within the BBC. In 2011 they published everyone has a

:33:08. > :33:10.story, the BBC diversity strategy 2011 to 2015 outlined the

:33:11. > :33:16.determination to visit the increase our diversity on and off air and

:33:17. > :33:19.five separate strategic equality objectives. Diversity was outsourced

:33:20. > :33:25.to various divisions who were told to create divisional diversity

:33:26. > :33:30.action plans and action groups. In 2014, the field of the action plan

:33:31. > :33:35.to tackle on Darfur representation, starting -- stating that we need to

:33:36. > :33:45.do more. He was a senior developer programme. His plan for six ethnic

:33:46. > :33:49.minority leaders. Last year we heard it and we are hearing to begin, but

:33:50. > :33:54.at the end of this month, the BBC will publish an equality and

:33:55. > :34:01.diversity report. Yet another one. Yet another one is common. It is all

:34:02. > :34:07.going to be fixed. 3.7 billion. Another strategy to get our teeth

:34:08. > :34:14.sunk into. If it is genuinely a universal broadcaster would have to

:34:15. > :34:20.ask, it can no longer be able skills training. These skills aren't there.

:34:21. > :34:27.It is about the institution and the change that is now required. That is

:34:28. > :34:31.why we bring this up. I am growing tired of strategies, new approaches,

:34:32. > :34:37.action plans, of initiatives and of press releases. The net result of

:34:38. > :34:39.these strategies is very little. Despite the good intentions,

:34:40. > :34:46.rhetoric has not been matched by real progress. In 2011, the total

:34:47. > :34:52.proportion of the workforce in the BBC from a black, Asian or minority

:34:53. > :35:00.background was 12.2%. Trapped against the progress of the 2011 to

:35:01. > :35:18.2015 strategy, we see modest rises of 12%. In four years we have seen

:35:19. > :35:24.80.9% increase. In 2013, in 12 years they have increased the proportion

:35:25. > :35:32.of black and Asian minority staff by 2.2%. That is still not an increase

:35:33. > :35:37.in management rose. We all put into Broadcasting House and see the

:35:38. > :35:42.security, C Black staff at the junior and were walking to the user,

:35:43. > :35:47.walk into the newsroom, think about the editorial decisions that are

:35:48. > :35:53.being made and ask yourself, is that really representative of our country

:35:54. > :35:58.as a whole? Everyone I have spoken to recognise is that over the last

:35:59. > :36:04.two or three years, on screen representation has significantly

:36:05. > :36:10.improved. There are areas of the BBC output that are fantastic. I have

:36:11. > :36:16.young children. Children's television is one of those areas

:36:17. > :36:21.that is really diverse. Anyone with teenagers, slightly older children,

:36:22. > :36:29.watching BBC Three output, it is really diverse. Documentary making.

:36:30. > :36:34.Last year, my constituency was portrayed in a documentary, this is

:36:35. > :36:39.Tottenham, shrunk the lives of people in that part of north London.

:36:40. > :36:44.That is a strong area. In many areas, there is a huge amount of

:36:45. > :36:51.work to be done. Let's take the headlines around the U drama,

:36:52. > :36:56.undercover, which you can see on BBC I play. It is a great drama. But

:36:57. > :37:06.they announced with great fanfare, the first time we have had a drama

:37:07. > :37:11.with two black leads. In 2016. That wasn't you it's -- News in the 20th

:37:12. > :37:14.century, let alone this century. I have got to ask, on current affairs,

:37:15. > :37:20.I love sitting next to Andrew Neil on a Thursday night when I am

:37:21. > :37:30.standing in for Diane Abbott. Andrew Marr is a great guy. John Humphrys,

:37:31. > :37:36.David Dimbleby. When they will allow me on the show and they haven't done

:37:37. > :37:40.that for almost five years. But the point is these are white, patrician

:37:41. > :37:45.men. What does it communicate about our country that they cannot be a

:37:46. > :37:49.voice that is not a Southern voice, that it cannot be a woman, but it

:37:50. > :37:54.cannot be someone who is perverse bushwhacked these are the arbiters

:37:55. > :37:58.of our current affairs. We have two be brave, to whom a public

:37:59. > :38:02.broadcaster to account and just not appointed the same old faces from

:38:03. > :38:07.the same wood screws to be simple and jobs. It is not acceptable for a

:38:08. > :38:11.public broadcaster taking licence fee money. So we told them to

:38:12. > :38:14.account and see these individuals are brilliant but more needs to be

:38:15. > :38:23.done to get that diversity across the spectrum. A part of this comes

:38:24. > :38:27.back to senior management and the systemic change that really matters.

:38:28. > :38:31.You are at the decision makers? There has been focused on training

:38:32. > :38:37.schemes and apprenticeships to open up the industry. We need to change

:38:38. > :38:44.the cultures and practices which stop black and ethnic minority

:38:45. > :38:51.people to rise to the top. Only one of the 16 trustees is from a black,

:38:52. > :38:56.Asian or minority ethnic background. Of the eight Executive directors,

:38:57. > :39:00.and they are really important, they are the people who really covering

:39:01. > :39:04.the decisions that go on and on the Executive board, none are from a

:39:05. > :39:12.black or minority ethnic background. Only two are women. My question is

:39:13. > :39:17.simple, what will it take to stop a black, Asian or minority ethnic

:39:18. > :39:26.channel controller? When will we get there, I wonder? What have we got to

:39:27. > :39:33.do to see a black commissioner in an important area? Current affairs,

:39:34. > :39:36.drama, in the BBC. When will we get there? Is a public broadcaster

:39:37. > :39:42.really saying that across the population of this great country

:39:43. > :39:46.there are not individuals who, today, could take up those posts? Is

:39:47. > :39:51.it really saying that question that is what they have to explain to us

:39:52. > :40:02.over the coming weeks as it heads towards its diversity strategy? I

:40:03. > :40:09.will give way. Given the lack of diversity at the very top of the

:40:10. > :40:16.BBC, is it not now time to think about a radical reorganisation of

:40:17. > :40:24.the management of the BBC at the top, with potentially elected

:40:25. > :40:31.directors for a BBC board? My honourable friend is good at radical

:40:32. > :40:38.ideas. He is known for them and that is certainly one. I will not stick

:40:39. > :40:43.my name on what it should be, but clearly we have come to a point, and

:40:44. > :40:49.maybe this is quite the issue is on the floor of the House, where what

:40:50. > :40:55.we want is change. It cannot be incremental, it has to be

:40:56. > :40:59.significant. If you treasure the public service broadcaster and the

:41:00. > :41:05.universality that it represents them I am afraid in a multi-platform

:41:06. > :41:10.world where people can turn to other places that public broadcaster will

:41:11. > :41:16.be in deep trouble if it does not step up pretty quickly. In 2015,

:41:17. > :41:21.9.2% of the senior leadership at the BBC were black and minority ethnic.

:41:22. > :41:28.Looking beneath the surface, in TV that drops to 7.1% and in the news

:41:29. > :41:32.that proportion drops to 5.8%. The lack of diversity at management and

:41:33. > :41:36.senior levels creates a dangerous, vicious circle. If those

:41:37. > :41:40.decision-makers are not the first, content and programming will lack

:41:41. > :41:45.fresh narratives, fresh insight and it will not speak to the breadth of

:41:46. > :41:49.this country. When the people at the top are the same people, hiring

:41:50. > :41:56.people in their own image, the circle simply stays closed. Can I

:41:57. > :42:03.really commend the honourable gentleman for this speech? It has

:42:04. > :42:07.highlighted the issue to me, it has educated me and I hope very much

:42:08. > :42:11.because of the brilliance of the speech and the force with which it

:42:12. > :42:20.is given that the BBC portable insist on change. I am very grateful

:42:21. > :42:34.but I am only half way through. I would fire. The BBC has set itself a

:42:35. > :42:40.target to increase representation amongst its workforce to 14.2%

:42:41. > :42:44.increase on-screen portrayal to 15%. The track record doesn't fill me

:42:45. > :42:50.with confidence that the target will be met. These targets also for

:42:51. > :42:58.Let's take sky. What have they said? All new TVs shows in sky

:42:59. > :43:06.entertainment will have people from BAME backgrounds in at least 20% of

:43:07. > :43:08.significant on-screen roles. All of sky 's original entertainment

:43:09. > :43:12.productions will have someone from a BAME background and release one

:43:13. > :43:17.senior role, producer, series producer and exec producer, director

:43:18. > :43:24.or head of production. That's really tall. 20% of writers and all to

:43:25. > :43:28.written shows across all sky payment productions will be from a BAME

:43:29. > :43:32.background. Looking at the statistics for January and Fabry

:43:33. > :43:37.2016 sky has also made progress in current affairs and news, 15% of

:43:38. > :43:45.interviewers on Sky News were BAME, 70% and Monaghan, 17% and Ian King.

:43:46. > :43:51.Let's look at Channel 4 's target in their diversity jobs. By 2020, 20%

:43:52. > :43:58.of all Channel 4 staff will be BAME. 33% increase from 15% in 2015. The

:43:59. > :44:03.top 120 people in the Channel 4 organisation, heads the department,

:44:04. > :44:08.senior commissioners come a 15% will be from a BAME background. An

:44:09. > :44:11.increase of 8%. Consider being behind the curve, the BBC it seems

:44:12. > :44:19.to me should be setting the gold standard. This isn't just in-house

:44:20. > :44:22.teams. Broadcasters, commission a lot of their work from independent

:44:23. > :44:28.production companies, the relationship between BBC and these

:44:29. > :44:33.third-party suppliers is growing in importance because the BBC is moving

:44:34. > :44:35.towards a new, more fluid production model whereby BBC studios will

:44:36. > :44:40.operate in the market and produce programmes for other broadcasters

:44:41. > :44:45.and the BBC will allow independence to compete for more of the

:44:46. > :44:48.Corporation's commissioning spend. Looking at the BBC's editorial

:44:49. > :44:53.guidelines which apply to all content is made by a third party

:44:54. > :44:58.working for the BBC, you will see 19 separate subsections and eight

:44:59. > :45:01.appendices but not one is specifically related to diversity

:45:02. > :45:09.and representation. You will see nudity, violence, the watershed, the

:45:10. > :45:12.right to reply, privacy, religion, editorial integrity, conflict of

:45:13. > :45:17.interest, all are covered specifically and in great detail but

:45:18. > :45:23.not one and diversity. In a guidelines document that's 228 pages

:45:24. > :45:28.long, there's not even a mention of the 14.2% target that the BBC sets

:45:29. > :45:32.for itself internally. In section four and impartiality, production

:45:33. > :45:37.companies sign up to providing a Brett and diversity of opinion so

:45:38. > :45:41.diversity of opinion but they don't sign up to diversity in terms of

:45:42. > :45:45.equality and representation. The BBC's latest equality and diversity

:45:46. > :45:48.report published in 2015 promised that we will be quit while supplies

:45:49. > :45:54.about biodiversity requirements so that they are able to deliver on

:45:55. > :45:57.them. To find out just how clear the BBC are to these suppliers, ice

:45:58. > :46:01.admitted a Freedom of information request asking to see the agreements

:46:02. > :46:06.that the BBC makes of suppliers. I did this for one show, that was

:46:07. > :46:09.question Time. I was told that the information would not be supplied to

:46:10. > :46:14.me because it's held for the purposes of journalism, art or

:46:15. > :46:17.literature. Although the BBC is promising to be clear with its

:46:18. > :46:21.suppliers about diversity requirements, it's altogether less

:46:22. > :46:25.clear with its audience and those that pay the licence fee about

:46:26. > :46:31.exactly what diversity requirements those are. I would ask that the

:46:32. > :46:37.Minister take a look at the Freedom of information rules that are

:46:38. > :46:41.enabling the BBC to be less than wholly transparent around these

:46:42. > :46:46.issues. I'm sure he and all members here today would agree that a

:46:47. > :46:53.publicly funded body must adhere to be higher standards of openness.

:46:54. > :46:55.Over 50% of the Freedom of information request but the

:46:56. > :47:06.organisation denied. I can not be right. -- that cannot be right. That

:47:07. > :47:12.is important. I Vazquez in time and Radio 4 for information on the

:47:13. > :47:16.representation for the Liberal Democrats versus the SNP for the

:47:17. > :47:26.moment. The answer was not forthcoming. The gentleman mixes

:47:27. > :47:31.case. By comparison, Channel 4 cover both on and off-screen diversity.

:47:32. > :47:34.All commissioners have two to one guideline in each section for

:47:35. > :47:43.example at least one lead character must be BAME or LGBT. One senior

:47:44. > :47:54.off-screen role, for all factual is programmes must be from a BAME

:47:55. > :47:59.background or disability. Channel 4 's expectations seem to me to be

:48:00. > :48:05.altogether much clearer, meaning that production companies know

:48:06. > :48:07.exactly what is expected of them. Trevor Phillips presented with

:48:08. > :48:16.search the Oxford media Convention last month showing that in 2015 BBC

:48:17. > :48:25.One had a 21.9% audience share but only 13.3% of a BAME audience share.

:48:26. > :48:30.BBC's two, 5.7% share. 3.3%. Because the BBC is failing in its duty to

:48:31. > :48:32.reflect modern Britain ethnic minorities are well within their

:48:33. > :48:38.rights to ask why they should continue to pay the licence fee at

:48:39. > :48:45.all. Given that its use to fund a service that does not serve them.

:48:46. > :48:47.The BBC, Channel 4, ITV, sky have come together to create the

:48:48. > :48:53.diversity monitoring scheme to provide details, consistent and

:48:54. > :48:57.comparative data and adversity which will be live imminently. Project

:48:58. > :49:00.Diamond is a ground-breaking project, it will shine a light on

:49:01. > :49:07.the industry and provide independent data, showing where we are with

:49:08. > :49:12.diversity in broadcasting so we can compare. The monitoring will be

:49:13. > :49:16.clear and the comparison will be. The minister will say more about it.

:49:17. > :49:21.The current BBC charter runs to the end of this year so when provides a

:49:22. > :49:26.vital opportunity to drive real change of the BBC was to be serious

:49:27. > :49:32.about being a leader in delivering diversity. Diversity requirements I

:49:33. > :49:36.believe should be stated clearly in the new charter as one of the BBC's

:49:37. > :49:41.public services. One of the core barleys at the heart of what the BBC

:49:42. > :49:48.does. We need something stronger, more ambitious and more tangible,

:49:49. > :49:51.more tangible is very important, than the current requirements that

:49:52. > :49:58.represent the UK as a nation and the communities which are in it. I call

:49:59. > :50:01.on the Minister to ensure the house will be -- diversity will be front

:50:02. > :50:05.and centre in the debate about the BBC's charter. The new public

:50:06. > :50:11.purpose should be written into the charter including a specific

:50:12. > :50:13.commitments to accurately reflect the diversity of the UK in its

:50:14. > :50:18.on-screen and off-screen workforce and in its programming including not

:50:19. > :50:23.limited to promoting equal opportunities irrespective of age,

:50:24. > :50:26.gender, race, ethnicity, disability sexual orientation or gender

:50:27. > :50:31.reassignment. It's time to update the BBC's founding mission for the

:50:32. > :50:37.21st century so that it becomes to inform, educate, entertain and

:50:38. > :50:42.reflect and writing diversity into the heart of the chapter would be a

:50:43. > :50:49.bold first step in doing that. If we're going to see another strategy

:50:50. > :50:52.at the end of this month, with more initiatives, we must see specific

:50:53. > :50:57.actions that the BBC proposes to take to secure progress each year

:50:58. > :51:02.together with details of how this progress will be measured

:51:03. > :51:07.objectively. To be taken seriously, the questions that we really need

:51:08. > :51:15.answers to our how and then when. Money talks and it is money alone

:51:16. > :51:19.that'll drive real change. We have hard evidence of what works when it

:51:20. > :51:22.comes to addressing under representation. The BBC had a

:51:23. > :51:27.problem when it came to representing the nations and the regions so did

:51:28. > :51:31.something about it which involved a dedicated pot of money. They didn't

:51:32. > :51:34.rely on just mentorship or apprenticeship schemes, there was

:51:35. > :51:40.structural change. The move to Salford was part of that. Since 2003

:51:41. > :51:44.there's been a Ford said increasing the number of network programmes

:51:45. > :51:50.produced the in which regions. As of this year, half of the network spend

:51:51. > :51:54.will be outside the M25, the amount of spending Scotland and Wales has

:51:55. > :51:57.matched or exceeded the size of the population until 2014 and I

:51:58. > :52:01.absolutely agree with that direction, I was in the department

:52:02. > :52:04.as Minister for the time. There were concerns in Scotland, 9% of the

:52:05. > :52:07.licence fit and none of the programmes, that has changed.

:52:08. > :52:12.There's more to do but that has changed over this vast period but

:52:13. > :52:16.returning to the BBC's core purpose to represent the UK's nations,

:52:17. > :52:21.regions and communities, the BBC seems to have got there in terms of

:52:22. > :52:28.the first to be on the road but what about BAME communities? I am sure

:52:29. > :52:32.that moving production spend out of London hasn't led to more employment

:52:33. > :52:37.for people of Chinese heritage in Liverpool or Somalia heritage in

:52:38. > :52:42.Cardiff or Pakistani heritage in Glasgow. They focus on improving the

:52:43. > :52:47.representation of nations and regions has also seen areas with

:52:48. > :52:52.high concentrations of black BAME people like Birmingham and London

:52:53. > :52:55.lose out. Now we need something similar to act as a counterbalance

:52:56. > :53:01.and if that's not in this neck strategy it will have failed. The

:53:02. > :53:05.absentee clear about that. This approach has not worked. After 15

:53:06. > :53:09.years of focusing on people skills mentoring, it hasn't delivered the

:53:10. > :53:15.step change we need to see in the institution. This is a seminal

:53:16. > :53:18.moment for the BBC and its position as a national broadcaster. It must

:53:19. > :53:23.write about challenge. It's not enough to have a director-general

:53:24. > :53:27.making the right noises. The will is there but the institution is big and

:53:28. > :53:31.it will take more than good intentions to turn around what is a

:53:32. > :53:36.huge tank air. We can't rely on individuals pushing the agenda, we

:53:37. > :53:39.need systemic change. Charter renewal is round the corner and we

:53:40. > :53:41.have reached a point of fragmentation in the TV industry

:53:42. > :53:45.where more content is available than ever before and viewers are

:53:46. > :53:50.consuming it online, watching OnDemand, they're watching and net

:53:51. > :53:54.flicks, Amazon, they're challenging the BBC's position at the centre of

:53:55. > :53:58.our national conversation but that national conversation is hugely

:53:59. > :54:04.important and my God, when things go wrong, when we see something awful,

:54:05. > :54:09.I was most of the culture in 2005 we saw those terrible bombs in London,

:54:10. > :54:14.it's the BBC we look to for that national conversation so let's get

:54:15. > :54:19.it right we cannot have people from BAME backgrounds turning to mother

:54:20. > :54:22.tongue cable stations because they are not seeing themselves

:54:23. > :54:27.represented on the BBC. Let's take the Chinese community in this

:54:28. > :54:33.country. My God, a community that's been here for over 100 years talk

:54:34. > :54:37.about invisible. Not just in this house although I recognise that the

:54:38. > :54:42.government have made some progress on their benches. Not just invisible

:54:43. > :54:45.but totally invisible and are broadcaster so time has come for

:54:46. > :54:48.change. That's why I have called this debate, I welcome the

:54:49. > :54:51.leadership that the Minister as shown and that so many have gathered

:54:52. > :54:59.across this house to debate the issue this afternoon.

:55:00. > :55:05.In December 2014, the royal television Society produced a video

:55:06. > :55:11.called behind-the-scenes at Newsnight, it is an information film

:55:12. > :55:19.for young people about the TV industry. It ran for 11 minutes and

:55:20. > :55:24.yet not a single person from a BAME backgrounds included and by BAME I

:55:25. > :55:29.am referring to people from black, Asian and minority ethnic

:55:30. > :55:35.backgrounds. Your seven months ago in September when the 15, the

:55:36. > :55:42.controller of radio five live gave a 16 minute presentation. It was about

:55:43. > :55:46.his ambitions for the station. In it, he made no reference to the BAME

:55:47. > :55:54.audience and included no BAME voices. The video that went with the

:55:55. > :56:00.presentation showed no BAME staff or any other BAME people on screen. The

:56:01. > :56:06.embarrassment continues anecdotally with many public figures commenting

:56:07. > :56:11.on the lack of diversity at the BBC. Greg Dyke as director-general

:56:12. > :56:16.described his organisation as hideously white, Tony Hall currently

:56:17. > :56:23.director-general said we need to do better. I expect today the

:56:24. > :56:28.colleagues will cite others shortcomings in the BBC's diversity

:56:29. > :56:34.record and yes, actually, there is so much to be done. And, yes, they

:56:35. > :56:39.do need to do better. But I have seen the BBC show leadership before

:56:40. > :56:45.and I've seen them create positive change in several areas in recent

:56:46. > :56:50.years. Take women in sports, for example. As a result of Barbara

:56:51. > :56:55.Slater's vision as head of sport the BBC and working very closely with

:56:56. > :57:02.the C and S, a step change was achieved in women's sport media

:57:03. > :57:06.coverage in the UK. Sky and BT Sport played their part, to, but the BBC

:57:07. > :57:13.were an essential part of the mix and it should not be taken away from

:57:14. > :57:18.them. To my mind, if they can tackle gender diversity in sport, not easy,

:57:19. > :57:22.then why not racial diversity within their own organisation? Perhaps

:57:23. > :57:32.we're starting to see some encouraging signs. In 2014, the BBC

:57:33. > :57:38.launched a plan with targets and a budget to address some of the issues

:57:39. > :57:43.that I've raised. 18 months later, some progress has been made in

:57:44. > :57:47.recruitment and commissioning of BAME mock writers. Sky and Channel 4

:57:48. > :57:58.have their plans, too, with even more ambitious targets. And budgets.

:57:59. > :58:05.What metrics are important for measuring, they can beat you by

:58:06. > :58:09.short-term thinking and convenience. This will not achieve sustainable

:58:10. > :58:15.change. For real change, the dinosaurs really do have to go. The

:58:16. > :58:22.body corporate rewired and an organisation created with diversity

:58:23. > :58:26.actually running through its aims. An organisation where people can be

:58:27. > :58:29.recruited and promoted in a moment and where they can feel comfortable

:58:30. > :58:36.and part of the place and able to succeed and it level. Not for the

:58:37. > :58:40.sake of tokenism and targets, but because they have the right skills

:58:41. > :58:48.and they reflect the world in which we live. Thank for away. Does she

:58:49. > :58:56.jerked my view that there will not be real change on a whole series of

:58:57. > :59:00.accountability questions until ordinary licence fee payers have the

:59:01. > :59:09.opportunity to have a direct say in who runs the BBC? Licence fee payers

:59:10. > :59:14.are not really going to be able to hold the BBC to account on diversity

:59:15. > :59:19.until they have the opportunity to directly elect one or two at least

:59:20. > :59:27.of the directors of the BBC? I hear what he says and I know the comments

:59:28. > :59:33.on his radical ideas. To get this right, we do need to have unusual

:59:34. > :59:37.ideas put into the mix, they do need to be discussed. In some ways,

:59:38. > :59:43.however, people talk with their purse and if the British people are

:59:44. > :59:46.not happy with the representation at the programming from the BBC they

:59:47. > :59:50.will not pay the licence fee. In a way, they do have a safe because

:59:51. > :59:53.they would spend their money. I'd take on board what he has a safe

:59:54. > :59:56.because they would spend their money. I'd take on board what he has

:59:57. > :00:03.said. Our diversity is something to be celebrated and broadcast far and

:00:04. > :00:06.wide. Especially in places where racism and discrimination abound.

:00:07. > :00:12.The BBC could and should be reading debate on this with 23 million

:00:13. > :00:19.viewers every week worldwide in 33 different languages. Just before

:00:20. > :00:23.Armistice Day last year, the BBC ran some programmes about soldiers and

:00:24. > :00:30.supplies making a big difference during the war. One featured a seek

:00:31. > :00:35.man, another a Muslim man. Both of them fought bravely to defend our

:00:36. > :00:39.country and made incredible sacrifices. This coverage, at a time

:00:40. > :00:44.of great national pride, illustrated the positive link between

:00:45. > :00:48.Britishness and multicultural. I am in no doubt that the stories have

:00:49. > :00:55.changed some perceptions and some behaviour. But we need the BBC to

:00:56. > :00:58.make more programmes like this. Programmes that attract a diverse

:00:59. > :01:04.audience while still entertaining the wider population. If those

:01:05. > :01:10.programmes were commonplace then so too with the demand for production

:01:11. > :01:14.teams, writers and actors from a BME background. The Lenny Henry plan for

:01:15. > :01:25.a ring fenced budgets could greatly assist this much set change. The

:01:26. > :01:31.undergraduates in the BBC, they find difficulty getting work at the BBC.

:01:32. > :01:34.Yvonne Thomson from the Federation of black women business owners

:01:35. > :01:40.remarked sarcastically that perhaps applicants should use English

:01:41. > :01:45.sounding names like Camilla or John and see if you get a call back then.

:01:46. > :01:51.A similar point was made by our Prime Minister at party conference

:01:52. > :01:54.last year. But specifically in relation to the BBC but in relation

:01:55. > :02:00.to discrimination in recruitment generally. Since then, the

:02:01. > :02:05.government have announced that companies and organisations that

:02:06. > :02:10.employ over 1.8 million people will recruit on a name of blind basis. To

:02:11. > :02:14.their credit, the BBC is a participant, but they could go even

:02:15. > :02:18.further. They could disclose on a voluntary basis detailed BME data on

:02:19. > :02:25.recruitment, retention, promotion and pay. This type of transparency

:02:26. > :02:32.not only helps to focus the mind but it sets a great example for others

:02:33. > :02:36.to follow. I know that some data was published in one of the 2015

:02:37. > :02:41.diversity reports. But the cables were not user-friendly, they were

:02:42. > :02:46.hard to read. I spent several hours on them and there was no real

:02:47. > :02:51.narrative that drew conclusions and no real analysis. We remain pretty

:02:52. > :02:55.blind to the fact in an area where greater transparency is desperately

:02:56. > :03:04.needed and where lessons could and should be grand. Does my friend

:03:05. > :03:08.agree with me that there would be some benefit in redacting not just

:03:09. > :03:12.the names of people on applications but the school and university they

:03:13. > :03:17.went to as well, taking into account the impact that going to Oxbridge

:03:18. > :03:23.and the screw you attend, especially the Independent school, can have on

:03:24. > :03:26.the impact on people being employed? That was research recently that

:03:27. > :03:30.showed that in the fields of law, journalism, judges the screw you

:03:31. > :03:33.went to university he went to university when two has a massive

:03:34. > :03:40.impact on your application. I think that was a very interesting idea. We

:03:41. > :03:46.should make sure we attract the most diverse talent, especially the BBC

:03:47. > :03:50.and other stations. The more diverse talent, the better the programmes

:03:51. > :03:56.and the higher the ratings. The business case is made. I think it is

:03:57. > :04:00.a moving target. See how the name line goes but we have to look

:04:01. > :04:04.everything. Government has a significant role to play. I want to

:04:05. > :04:09.take this opportunity as well to mention the minister, honourable

:04:10. > :04:14.friend for Didcot, his personal commitment and his personal

:04:15. > :04:17.determination to shine a light on the need for diversity in the

:04:18. > :04:24.creative arts and media is absolutely commendable. I hope what

:04:25. > :04:29.ministers across all government departments take note of his fine

:04:30. > :04:33.example as they strive to achieve the 2020 vision for equality and

:04:34. > :04:39.diversity over the next four years. Charter renewal is an ideal

:04:40. > :04:43.opportunity for the government. During the process, they could

:04:44. > :04:48.really help to drive change and position the BBC as the world leader

:04:49. > :04:54.in delivering diversity. I would like to see the remit of the public

:04:55. > :04:57.purse and strengthened, diversity commitments should be strengthened

:04:58. > :05:00.and diversity targets set to run over the lifetime of the next

:05:01. > :05:08.charter. Governments must be taken as well. In order to truly represent

:05:09. > :05:11.the UK, its nations, regions and communities, the BBC governing body,

:05:12. > :05:19.the trust, must itself better reflect diversity in the UK. In the

:05:20. > :05:24.2015 BBC diversity report, of 23 senior people employed at the trust,

:05:25. > :05:30.none were from a BME background and currently only one of the 12

:05:31. > :05:37.trustees was non-white. Culture change is never an easy process. It

:05:38. > :05:41.is the only way to achieve real change. Channel 4 are actually

:05:42. > :05:45.managing this. They are doing really well and they have done it because

:05:46. > :05:51.of three key factors. Commitment, leadership and money. The BBC need

:05:52. > :05:56.to embrace this as well, honestly and from the very top. They have

:05:57. > :06:00.done at the surface, they have set the targets, they have got their

:06:01. > :06:07.plans, cut their budget, they know exactly what the problems are. They

:06:08. > :06:11.just need to get on now and do it. Before I caught the next Speaker, we

:06:12. > :06:15.have more or less the right amount of time for every member to get in

:06:16. > :06:24.with about ten minutes, but not much more than that. Was that in mind,

:06:25. > :06:27.Julia Elliott. I would like to start by congratulating my pet honourable

:06:28. > :06:32.friend for securing this really interesting debate with help from

:06:33. > :06:41.the honourable member from Maidstone. It is one of those things

:06:42. > :06:47.that completely crosses party lines. The British public love and feel

:06:48. > :06:53.great interest and concern for the BBC. Since joining the culture,

:06:54. > :06:58.media and sport committee in October last year, I have spent much of my

:06:59. > :07:03.time reading written submission from the BBC and attending oral evidence

:07:04. > :07:07.sessions on the BBC charter renewal. I am pleased to have this

:07:08. > :07:12.opportunity to speak on I feel strongly about, which is regional

:07:13. > :07:16.diversity and fairer funding. I acknowledge all of the issue is

:07:17. > :07:21.already being raised and I am sure the others that will be grazed in

:07:22. > :07:26.the course of the debate and that is one of the things this debate is so

:07:27. > :07:32.wide ranging. It is not a narrow area of diversity we are concerned

:07:33. > :07:35.about. It is a very broad area. Before I move on to the central part

:07:36. > :07:40.of my contribution, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the BBC.

:07:41. > :07:46.It isn't perfect and I will move on to what I think are constructive

:07:47. > :07:50.criticisms on what it is not currently getting right and how it

:07:51. > :07:55.can improve. It is worth reiterating the deep well of affection I have

:07:56. > :08:01.and so many of my constituents have for the BBC and its unique position

:08:02. > :08:08.in British society. Arts Council England was right when it described

:08:09. > :08:11.the BBC is invaluable to the UK. It is an internationally recognised

:08:12. > :08:16.example of what British creativity and commitment can achieve. The BBC

:08:17. > :08:23.charter which runs to the end of this year is clear in stating the

:08:24. > :08:29.public purpose of the BBC. This includes representing the UK, its

:08:30. > :08:33.nations, regions and communities. At present, I believe the BBC is

:08:34. > :08:37.falling short of this commitment. There are two central issues at

:08:38. > :08:41.stake here, I believe. What financial and the other somewhat

:08:42. > :08:46.more intangible but no less important. That is reflecting

:08:47. > :08:54.diverse experiences. To start with the financial aspect. At ?873

:08:55. > :08:59.million, the North of England is the second highest contributor to the

:09:00. > :09:04.BBC licence fee in this country. It when you look at BBC spending per

:09:05. > :09:08.region, the North comes last with just ?48 million being spent in the

:09:09. > :09:15.region. This can be compared with 150 million in the country of Wales

:09:16. > :09:20.and two and a half billion pounds in London. The migration of BBC

:09:21. > :09:24.services, production and output to Salford has been successful in

:09:25. > :09:28.somewhat rebalancing the concentration of BBC services away

:09:29. > :09:35.from London. In the same way that London is not the UK, Salford is not

:09:36. > :09:43.the north. Or rather, it is where the North ends. It extends all the

:09:44. > :09:48.way to Sunderland and beyond. I believe it is a misplaced belief

:09:49. > :09:52.that if you place staff and commissioning services in Salford

:09:53. > :09:56.you can take of the North from your check list. This should not be the

:09:57. > :10:02.case. It is certainly not the case there is a lack of talent outside of

:10:03. > :10:06.London and Salford. The University of Sunderland has one of the best

:10:07. > :10:11.journalism courses in the country within the outstanding faculty of

:10:12. > :10:15.Art, design and media. The BBC I think has a role here in working

:10:16. > :10:20.with those types of young people, talented, enthusiastic young people

:10:21. > :10:23.who support them and enable them to build their careers. As a major

:10:24. > :10:27.player, the BBC has enormous spending power and provides a major

:10:28. > :10:35.stream of capital to the UK creative industries. In 2013, the BBC spent

:10:36. > :10:42.?2.4 billion across television, radio and online. It makes it the

:10:43. > :10:46.single largest source of funding for original content, excluding sport.

:10:47. > :10:50.It is also the case that for every pound of licence fee the BBC spends

:10:51. > :10:59.it generates ?2 of economic activity. By failing to spend money

:11:00. > :11:01.in all areas of the country, the BBC is denying regions like the

:11:02. > :11:09.north-east of the economic benefits that licence the spending can bring.

:11:10. > :11:14.The BBC has been making progress on these issues. The North of England

:11:15. > :11:19.accounts for just under a quarter of the UK population and programming

:11:20. > :11:26.spending has increased from just over 10% in 2007 to over 17% in

:11:27. > :11:34.2013. This improvement is welcome but clearly there is further to go.

:11:35. > :11:38.I understand that the BBC is under pressure to reduce costs and there

:11:39. > :11:42.is a danger that the BBC spreads its investment too thinly. However, it

:11:43. > :11:47.must be possible for a national broadcaster to have, at the least,

:11:48. > :11:51.commissioning bases in all major regional centres and to develop a

:11:52. > :11:55.fair commissioning and business strategy that encourages production

:11:56. > :11:59.across all part of the country. I would like to move onto my second

:12:00. > :12:06.point, which is the representation of regions like the north-east on

:12:07. > :12:09.BBC television, radio and online. Perhaps the greatest strength the

:12:10. > :12:15.BBC has is that it is truly a national organisation engendering

:12:16. > :12:21.shared experiences and making our imagined community a little more

:12:22. > :12:25.real. This will begin to break down if people do not feel their

:12:26. > :12:31.experiences are being reflected in the output of the BBC. Figures from

:12:32. > :12:38.the BBC trust in 2014 show that only 52% of the UK adults believe that

:12:39. > :12:43.the BBC performed well in representing their nation and

:12:44. > :12:47.region. We simply cannot underestimate the impact on a young

:12:48. > :12:54.child when they see and hear someone like them on television, be it in

:12:55. > :12:59.drama, or in newsrooms who look and sound like them. To deliver to them

:13:00. > :13:03.the reassurance that their life experience is not a lonely one and

:13:04. > :13:09.that people like them are going through many of the same issues.

:13:10. > :13:16.In children's television there is history of success in my region,

:13:17. > :13:19.Byker Grove, Tracey beaker and indeed and on deck, two of the most

:13:20. > :13:33.successful people intelligent today. Let them off for being from

:13:34. > :13:35.Newcastle. Those diverse talents reflecting different experiences,

:13:36. > :13:40.geographies, cultures, cuisines and accidents. We expect a lot from the

:13:41. > :13:46.BBC, both as licence fee payers and as viewers, we expect BBC output to

:13:47. > :13:51.be of high quality, original, innovative, challenging, engaging

:13:52. > :13:55.and trustworthy. For rhetoric flecked the diverse British

:13:56. > :14:00.experience and for it to be widely available. I believe that each

:14:01. > :14:04.region and country has the right to see itself represented by the

:14:05. > :14:08.national broadcaster. At present, I think the BBC is falling short on

:14:09. > :14:15.this commitment and I look forward to working with them both as a

:14:16. > :14:19.constituency MP and on the select committee in order to ensure this

:14:20. > :14:26.commitment is met and to help make the BBC even better.

:14:27. > :14:30.Thank you for the opportunities of speech and I congratulate the

:14:31. > :14:36.honourable member for Tottenham for securing this debate. The honourable

:14:37. > :14:41.member has focused on an important and interesting topic and black and

:14:42. > :14:48.ethnic minority diversity in the BBC. I concede that the honourable

:14:49. > :14:54.member is worried he's going to be waiting and just getting plans, he

:14:55. > :15:00.wants action. I would like to take this opportunity to consider

:15:01. > :15:05.diversity of opinions in the BBC specifically. Britain has always

:15:06. > :15:12.been proud to have a broadcaster free from advertisement and

:15:13. > :15:17.government interference. However I cannot be proud of a supposedly

:15:18. > :15:24.impartial public service that time after time take the opportunity to

:15:25. > :15:30.promote political opinions. This relentless promotion of opinion is

:15:31. > :15:35.not right. Mainly because impartiality is supposed to be at

:15:36. > :15:43.the core of the BBC's commitment to its audience. Impartiality should

:15:44. > :15:47.ensure that the BBC's output can be trusted by people of all political

:15:48. > :15:54.opinions in the UK's cities, towns and villages. I believe that that

:15:55. > :16:00.trust is increasingly being lost. Last the sender, the European

:16:01. > :16:06.scrutiny committee of which I'm a member took evidence from Rhona

:16:07. > :16:12.Fairhead and Richard Eyre of the BBC trust. Touring the sessions, it

:16:13. > :16:17.became clear that the BBC's in partiality relies on three

:16:18. > :16:20.safeguards. They are the editorial judgment of programme makers using

:16:21. > :16:25.the editorial guidelines, the impartiality reviews and the

:16:26. > :16:32.feedback from I quote 50 million viewers and listeners. Firstly,

:16:33. > :16:37.there are the trusts editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a

:16:38. > :16:45.help for editors and producers to produce work to the highest ethical

:16:46. > :16:48.and editorial standards. Ethical and editorial standards. The guidelines

:16:49. > :16:55.include a chapter on impartiality since the role of charter requires

:16:56. > :17:02.impartial coverage. The chapter is only a framework for editors and

:17:03. > :17:06.producers to interpret the impartiality of the comments. In an

:17:07. > :17:12.organisation as large as the BBC, this is simply not sufficient as a

:17:13. > :17:18.primary safeguard. Furthermore, it has been shown that minor editorial

:17:19. > :17:22.decisions built up to a larger pattern that cumulatively create an

:17:23. > :17:29.unintentional bias. Secondly, there are the trusts regular impartiality

:17:30. > :17:34.reviews. They are intended to be studies to establish how content

:17:35. > :17:43.evolves over a significant period of time. They also said to produce

:17:44. > :17:49.objective and in-depth analysis. The review from 2007 is quite a good

:17:50. > :17:56.example of how an impartiality review should not be conducted.

:17:57. > :18:04.Committee producing the report consisted almost 70% of BBC staff

:18:05. > :18:09.and trustees. The report did not aim to look for systematic bias.

:18:10. > :18:16.Unsurprisingly, they didn't find it. Then there is the pebble report from

:18:17. > :18:23.2012. The report aims to be a review of the breadth of opinion in the BBC

:18:24. > :18:30.output. In other words, the report was also not directly looking for

:18:31. > :18:35.systemic bias. News watch, the public service monitor, has found

:18:36. > :18:41.that problems were ignored by the researchers of the report, for

:18:42. > :18:48.instance it failed to explain a 50% in Ukip... A 50% drop in Ukip

:18:49. > :18:55.appearances during the five-year period from 2007 to the time leading

:18:56. > :18:59.up to the report. Instead, the pebble report suggested that Ukip's

:19:00. > :19:05.views were represented by the Conservative Party. I'm quite sure

:19:06. > :19:10.my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would robust lead to screw

:19:11. > :19:15.with that conclusion. -- robust we disagree. The finals safeguard is

:19:16. > :19:22.the complaint procedure with feedback from the 50 million

:19:23. > :19:27.viewers. The complaints procedure is patronising, compensated and

:19:28. > :19:33.inefficient. In fact, Newsnight went so far as to say that the procedures

:19:34. > :19:41.automatic response was to discourage and dismiss complainants. The next

:19:42. > :19:44.issue I wish to raise is about programme content. The BBC is not

:19:45. > :19:51.allowed to express opinion on current affairs. Can it be right

:19:52. > :19:55.that the Daily Mail tells others that Jonathan Dimbleby urged his

:19:56. > :20:00.audience to write to their MPs to save the BBC from further cuts? The

:20:01. > :20:04.alleged incident happened just a week after the culture media and

:20:05. > :20:11.sport select committee has published a critical report about the BBC.

:20:12. > :20:19.Dimbleby's call to arms was made at the end of any questions in front of

:20:20. > :20:22.the Hereford audience. I'm grateful to the member for giving way and

:20:23. > :20:27.also would like to congratulate in particular my friend the member for

:20:28. > :20:30.Tottenham for bringing forward this debate. Can I asked the member does

:20:31. > :20:37.he really believe that the Daily Mail is the best arbiter of the

:20:38. > :20:42.impartiality or otherwise of a great institution like the BBC? I wasn't

:20:43. > :20:46.asking it to do that, I was asking it to quote what Mr Dimbleby said

:20:47. > :20:55.and what Mr Dimbleby said was a fact quoted by the Daily Mail. This was

:20:56. > :21:02.never broadcast. It would have been a massive breach of the BBC. There

:21:03. > :21:08.are still many people who believe in the BBC's strong ethos of

:21:09. > :21:12.impartiality and that editor 's judgment is enough to protect it.

:21:13. > :21:18.The impartiality of the BBC is ingrained into our national psyche

:21:19. > :21:24.but we keep seeing the BBC fail this point over and over again. Earlier

:21:25. > :21:29.this year, the honourable member for Cardiff South resign from his post

:21:30. > :21:35.as Shadow Foreign Minister live and the daily politics. Daily politics

:21:36. > :21:40.was criticised for the decision to broadcast the minister 's work as a

:21:41. > :21:44.nation. The BBC defended themselves saying they are supposed to break

:21:45. > :21:51.news stories but the output editor for the daily politics revealed in a

:21:52. > :21:55.blog that the BBC News political editor Laura Combs Burke had made a

:21:56. > :22:02.deal with the honourable member and his mesic resignation before the

:22:03. > :22:07.show was filmed. The fact that the blog post was later deleted suggest

:22:08. > :22:13.that the BBC were not breaking the law... The news but plan to create a

:22:14. > :22:18.bit of a news story. That is the difference. For most television,

:22:19. > :22:24.viewing and awards determine your right to exist. They followed the

:22:25. > :22:28.sensational path in order to attract an audience and that is

:22:29. > :22:33.understandable that the BBC doesn't need to create sensation, there

:22:34. > :22:38.existence is protected through the royal charter and the accompanying

:22:39. > :22:46.agreement. Instead, the BBC is charged with reflecting the UK's

:22:47. > :22:55.diversity to be independent and to uphold their impartiality. Robert

:22:56. > :23:01.Mosey, her former editorial director of London 2012 the BBC, gave his

:23:02. > :23:07.view on the 25th of February this year in new statesman. He wrote, I

:23:08. > :23:13.do not believe that there is systematic bias. The BBC will be

:23:14. > :23:18.meticulous in allocating airtime for contributors and its journalists

:23:19. > :23:21.will display their characteristic professionalism but they will also

:23:22. > :23:28.need to have some empathy with the opposing camps. Correct. But he

:23:29. > :23:33.unintentionally demonstrate a point. Systematic bias is difficult to

:23:34. > :23:37.detect and it is especially difficult to detect when you are one

:23:38. > :23:43.of those making minor decisions that leads to a larger pattern of

:23:44. > :23:50.systemic bias. It's obvious that the employees of a company all the term

:23:51. > :23:53.in the tone of the output. And this is what is fundamentally wrong with

:23:54. > :24:01.the BBC. The inability of individual staff to be objective about the

:24:02. > :24:07.overall output. What is the BBC done to react and to rectify these issues

:24:08. > :24:12.when they have been voiced? The BBC has done nothing other than

:24:13. > :24:16.discourage and dismissed them. The BBC's bias is a big issue but it is

:24:17. > :24:22.not the one that worries me most. It is their unwillingness to examine

:24:23. > :24:28.themselves and their output critically that worries me. If even

:24:29. > :24:31.the BBC's own complaints procedure lacks independence and rejects

:24:32. > :24:37.criticism, something must be fundamentally wrong. Finally, I'd

:24:38. > :24:41.like to finish by saying that this is not a criticism of the majority

:24:42. > :24:46.of staff and editors working for the BBC. They cannot be expected to

:24:47. > :24:51.solve the problem which is created by the system they work in. I think

:24:52. > :24:56.the ants must be stronger and more efficient safeguards consideration

:24:57. > :25:02.of the cumulative output of the BBC rather than individual programmes. A

:25:03. > :25:08.new willingness to look self critically to ensure they continue

:25:09. > :25:12.to deserve their unique and privileged position. That can only

:25:13. > :25:25.come from the trustees. First of all rights congratulate my

:25:26. > :25:30.friend from Tottenham for securing this important debate. My honourable

:25:31. > :25:35.friend from Maidstone as well. I want to talk about two things in

:25:36. > :25:42.this debate. Optics and solutions. The optics of whatever we do is

:25:43. > :25:47.very, very important, both in this place and in the BBC. There is a

:25:48. > :25:52.saying that says that you can't be what you can't see. I like to think

:25:53. > :26:00.of it as you can be what you can see. Therefore we need to see more

:26:01. > :26:06.diversity at the BBC. I company that's with a short story. A friend

:26:07. > :26:13.of mine, we were talking many years ago and he is an actor and he said,

:26:14. > :26:16.he can't find any jobs here in the UK. He was an absolutely fabulous

:26:17. > :26:21.and he said, he's going to go to America and we had this big debate

:26:22. > :26:25.on whether it was a good idea for him to go to America. I was sad to

:26:26. > :26:30.see him leave, obviously. He did very well and his name is Idris Elba

:26:31. > :26:42.and he's now a household name but it is a shame that we couldn't keep the

:26:43. > :26:44.talent in-house in the first place. Black people in particular get very

:26:45. > :26:54.excited when we see other black people on TV. I remember in the days

:26:55. > :26:56.of T Mobile and after seven o'clock when the phones would ring because

:26:57. > :27:01.the calls were free to say did you see that black person on this TV

:27:02. > :27:10.station and it was the talk of the community. Optics is so important.

:27:11. > :27:20.I'm loving my honourable friend 's speech and she is so right but I

:27:21. > :27:25.think what she illustrates and she was talking about programmes, I'm

:27:26. > :27:28.thinking of Desmond 's, the legendary real McCoy, it is unjust

:27:29. > :27:32.to is in front of the camera, the commissioning editors and the

:27:33. > :27:37.producers are as important if there is to be an accurate portrayal of

:27:38. > :27:42.our different communities and the BBC and we do not see the kind of

:27:43. > :27:44.stereotyping which unfortunately we have seen year after year after year

:27:45. > :27:55.of our different communities. I will come to some of that in my

:27:56. > :28:04.speech later on. I don't watch the BBC that often to be fair, but I do

:28:05. > :28:10.remember watching Eastenders and thinking this is really strange

:28:11. > :28:16.being from the east and thinking there is hardly any black people in

:28:17. > :28:22.Eastenders, and then when there was, they were so unrepresentative of any

:28:23. > :28:28.black person that I ever knew, it was a little bit shocking and that

:28:29. > :28:32.goes to the commissioners and how these things are done. It is so

:28:33. > :28:42.important because if you do not understand the culture or what it

:28:43. > :28:48.means to be whether disabled, or a black person or a woman, you will

:28:49. > :28:55.get it wrong. As I was saying, my honourable friend mentioned a new

:28:56. > :29:02.BBC drama. When I saw the trailers, I looked it up and put it on record.

:29:03. > :29:07.I recorded it because there were two black leaves and I got excited

:29:08. > :29:17.again. Adrian Lester is also quite hot.

:29:18. > :29:28.Mr Deputy Speaker, you have come in at the right time. Sean derives if a

:29:29. > :29:32.producer and director and writer and she makes these amazing shows such

:29:33. > :29:38.as how to get away with murder and scandal, and she was once asked how

:29:39. > :29:44.does she feel about all the diversity issue brings to TV and she

:29:45. > :29:50.responds that what she is doing is normalising TV, normalising what we

:29:51. > :29:55.watch and that is what I do want to see. I demand to see the BBC be

:29:56. > :30:03.normalised in this way. The Olympics is another case and example where

:30:04. > :30:08.black people are seen on the fields are very well-known in sport, yet

:30:09. > :30:13.the coverage of the Olympics, you very rarely saw any black presenters

:30:14. > :30:20.and it me wonder how that could be possible. I'm not sure if there was

:30:21. > :30:29.a report produced at the end of that show, the end of the Olympics in

:30:30. > :30:37.2012. According to the directors UK, only 1.5% of programmes are

:30:38. > :30:42.presented by ethnic people and that is fundamentally the root of some of

:30:43. > :30:49.the problems we have. The black and Asian minority ethnic numbers

:30:50. > :30:56.working in TV felt a map to create when BBC and Channel 4 moved

:30:57. > :31:01.productions outside of London. Why was that not considered when they

:31:02. > :31:08.were thinking about the move that we retain as well as build on it, and

:31:09. > :31:13.there is a problem with recruitment within the BBC. The BBC always

:31:14. > :31:18.recruit internally first. What this means is they were only recruit from

:31:19. > :31:24.the people they currently have, that means if it is hideously white, you

:31:25. > :31:28.will only be recruiting and promoting white people, therefore,

:31:29. > :31:35.the BBC's recruitment process needs to change and my honourable friend

:31:36. > :31:39.from Streatham mentioned industry professionals. It is very difficult

:31:40. > :31:46.for industry professionals to see and understand the beauty cheat and

:31:47. > :31:51.diversity of written material if they don't understand it. Therefore,

:31:52. > :31:57.the only way that can be really addressed is if you change some of

:31:58. > :32:01.the industry professionals and therefore I think it is incumbent on

:32:02. > :32:14.the Minister to ensure the BBC does this this quickly. I give way. I was

:32:15. > :32:20.thinking about those who are worried and concerned about the number of

:32:21. > :32:30.outs as opposed to the remains employed by the BBC. I bet it is

:32:31. > :32:42.rather little. I'm not quite sure. Somehow I thought that was linked to

:32:43. > :32:48.the EU! So... Any and everything the Government thinks is important, it

:32:49. > :32:54.has been said already but it must be written into the BBC charter. There

:32:55. > :32:59.is no excuse for it not to be written into the BBC charter. The

:33:00. > :33:03.charter already takes into consideration the number of current

:33:04. > :33:07.affairs programmes, how many children's programmes should be

:33:08. > :33:13.made, how many programmes should be made in Scotland and Wales, so if

:33:14. > :33:18.the BBC and government are serious about diversity, it must be

:33:19. > :33:22.explicitly written in the charter with the threat of BBC losing money

:33:23. > :33:29.if it does not fulfil its obligation. We know that Ofcom

:33:30. > :33:38.oversees the TV industry but not the BBC. The BBC, I hope that will

:33:39. > :33:46.change and the BBC board needs to be, in my opinion and in many people

:33:47. > :33:51.that were asked, they must be completely independent. I also think

:33:52. > :33:59.that currently there are Russ Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English

:34:00. > :34:06.audience panels to express their interest to Ofcom but there is not

:34:07. > :34:10.an ethnic panel to represent their interests to Ofcom and money has

:34:11. > :34:15.gone into parts where there has been or there is audience panels,

:34:16. > :34:21.therefore, it stands to reason if we want to see more money going into

:34:22. > :34:30.the black and Asian ethnic area, a audience panel is the way to go. I

:34:31. > :34:37.wonder if I can take her back to a point she made when she said she

:34:38. > :34:41.thought the BBC board ought to be completely independent. Free of

:34:42. > :34:47.government interference in their appointments. Might she be willing

:34:48. > :34:51.to consider as a way of achieving that independence they need to have

:34:52. > :34:59.elections to the board to deliver that true independence? My friend

:35:00. > :35:04.and his radical solutions, yes, I would agree that there should be

:35:05. > :35:10.elections and I think it would produce interesting results and

:35:11. > :35:19.that's what we need to happen. Ofcom should ensure that the black and

:35:20. > :35:23.Asian ethnic population should have a systematic process to have their

:35:24. > :35:29.views and concerns heard by the industry by setting up this advisory

:35:30. > :35:34.board. I cannot stress how important a solution this is. We often talk

:35:35. > :35:42.about problems in this place but not the solution. I hope the Minister

:35:43. > :35:47.will take on board. I think particularly in respect of the point

:35:48. > :35:53.she is making, I think where you see the really hard and in where things

:35:54. > :35:58.go wrong if we don't have appropriate diversity is the

:35:59. > :36:02.representation of our Muslim communities, and the rising

:36:03. > :36:07.Islamophobia we see is in no small part to certain broadcasters, I have

:36:08. > :36:10.seen it happen on the BBC and others, who put up community leaders

:36:11. > :36:17.who purport to speak for that community but have have no mandate

:36:18. > :36:23.whatsoever to do so. If we have a panel, it will increase the chance

:36:24. > :36:28.of the BBC of getting this right and properly representing in particular

:36:29. > :36:34.the Muslim community. The intervention, absolutely. This is

:36:35. > :36:39.one of such important solutions to this problem. It means that you are

:36:40. > :36:47.not just relying on those people thinking they know who to go to. It

:36:48. > :36:50.means you open and widen the field to actually the community who

:36:51. > :36:58.actually know who to go to. This advisory board would be based on

:36:59. > :37:06.exactly the same model as the existing advisory committees in each

:37:07. > :37:10.nation, which currently provides Ofcom with detailed insights into

:37:11. > :37:17.the challenges faced by citizens and consumers in different parts of the

:37:18. > :37:22.UK. Ethnic interests would also be ensured by representation of Ofcom's

:37:23. > :37:28.content board and the consumer panel. Currently the UK ethnic

:37:29. > :37:31.community make up a large proportion of the UK population than any

:37:32. > :37:36.specific nation, with the exception of England and yet they can only

:37:37. > :37:42.make up less than 12% on any advisory board, meaning their voices

:37:43. > :37:45.are not heard as clearly as the people of Scotland, Wales and

:37:46. > :37:50.Northern Ireland. The Minister has a chance to put that right and I'm

:37:51. > :37:59.sure with his enthusiasm and commitment to the cause, I'm sure he

:38:00. > :38:14.will do so. Can I say I hope her ambition will be heard. I wish her

:38:15. > :38:18.well. We did have an informal ten minutes and the people intervening

:38:19. > :38:24.were hoping to be the next speakers. I would not like to put them down

:38:25. > :38:32.the list! I am coming to the end now. My ambition for my community is

:38:33. > :38:40.always as big as it possibly can be and holds no bounds. My one last

:38:41. > :38:47.plea, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the real McCoy. There has been a campaign

:38:48. > :38:52.over many years for the BBC to bring back the real McCoy and one of the

:38:53. > :38:57.reasons for this not being done apparently is that the archives have

:38:58. > :39:03.been lost. I wonder if the Minister would be able to look into this

:39:04. > :39:10.issue for me, because if the archive has been lost, it says to me that

:39:11. > :39:19.the BBC felt very little... Mr Deputy Speaker, a member just kissed

:39:20. > :39:26.his teeth which... It basically means it's a very bad thing that

:39:27. > :39:32.happened! Would-be Minister investigate this for me, because it

:39:33. > :39:38.would show that the BBC had very little regard for this programme

:39:39. > :39:44.that was such a funny, legendary programme and if he could please get

:39:45. > :39:52.back to me later on, because it would be a shame if that was the

:39:53. > :39:58.case. One last thing, the BBC is that threat from the Internet. Lots

:39:59. > :40:02.of groups and communities run their own programmes and shows on the

:40:03. > :40:08.Internet because their voices are not being heard. I was part of Star

:40:09. > :40:15.media and had my show to connect with the Somali community and I just

:40:16. > :40:23.think it's a shame the BBC does not grab the metal now and run with

:40:24. > :40:32.suggestions. Like others who has spoken before I am an enthusiast for

:40:33. > :40:37.the BBC. Yet I find myself sharing the essential analysis of my

:40:38. > :40:43.honourable friend for Tottenham who demanded not yet more good

:40:44. > :40:48.intentions from the BBC on diversity, but serious structural

:40:49. > :40:54.and systemic change. I want to use my few words of contribution to this

:40:55. > :40:58.debate to advocate one particular aspect of what I think that

:40:59. > :41:08.structural and systematic change might look like. In so doing just to

:41:09. > :41:12.echo the concern that much of my constituency does not fill properly

:41:13. > :41:18.represented in terms of the output of the BBC. I cannot think of any

:41:19. > :41:26.programme which has a leading figure from the Tamil community portrayed

:41:27. > :41:32.in a positive way. I have a large Pakistani and Gujarati community and

:41:33. > :41:39.the way they are portrayed, if they are portrayed at all, is often far

:41:40. > :41:47.from positive. Somali and Chinese constituents all also will wonder

:41:48. > :41:54.whether the BBC properly represents their communities also. I think

:41:55. > :42:00.there will be more chance of the BBC offering a more diverse output with

:42:01. > :42:06.more opportunities for black and ethnic minority staff and actors,

:42:07. > :42:11.and indeed more representation and more of the BBC's resource being

:42:12. > :42:19.generated from the regions of the UK, a point made strongly earlier.

:42:20. > :42:25.If the governance of the BBC at the very top is significant correctly

:42:26. > :42:31.changed, there has always been a consensus in the House, sometimes

:42:32. > :42:37.somewhat reluctant and sometimes somewhat disguised, that ministers

:42:38. > :42:43.of whichever party was in government at the time believing that overall

:42:44. > :42:48.control of the BBC trust should be left in their hands and that they

:42:49. > :42:54.should appoint to the BBC trust or should appoint the great particular

:42:55. > :42:59.examples of the great and good to the board who they felt comfortable

:43:00. > :43:04.with. I think the Government's proposals for change at the moment

:43:05. > :43:15.reflect that ongoing consensus. Albeit perhaps with less enthusiasm

:43:16. > :43:19.for the BBC than from previous Conservative government in the past.

:43:20. > :43:25.I do not think a 13 strong unitary board is currently in visitor, all

:43:26. > :43:29.appointed in one shape or form is likely to achieve the type of

:43:30. > :43:33.governments needed to ensure the more diverse BBC output that many of

:43:34. > :43:42.us want to see. I wonder whether it is time to have

:43:43. > :43:47.a serious debate about conversing the BBC's governance at the top into

:43:48. > :43:57.a more neutral form of governance. Where licensed lay payers can elect

:43:58. > :44:08.all or some of the directors of the BBC's board. -- licence fee payers.

:44:09. > :44:21.Joining me in a letter to the Times urging the BBC and the government to

:44:22. > :44:32.convert the BBC into a neutral. I think over time a more diverse board

:44:33. > :44:38.is more likely to have to take into account the needs for a more diverse

:44:39. > :44:44.output. It would-be directors are likely... Would be likely to get

:44:45. > :44:51.secure election. As licence fee payers and citizens, we nominally

:44:52. > :44:57.own the BBC, but in practice, we have very little influence over held

:44:58. > :45:01.the management behave, the financial decisions they take, the strategy

:45:02. > :45:07.they choose, the output they deliver comedy commissioning decisions they

:45:08. > :45:12.take, the pay levels of senior executives, or any other decision

:45:13. > :45:20.that the BBC management care to make. Our nominal ownership is a

:45:21. > :45:24.long way from real. In practice, as licence fee payers, our ownership

:45:25. > :45:30.responsibilities have been outsourced to ministers and to the

:45:31. > :45:37.great and good that they choose to put in place. The BBC does have an

:45:38. > :45:41.ownership deficit and an accountability gap. The current BBC

:45:42. > :46:01.Trust is accountable to know one the and ministers -- beyond ministers.

:46:02. > :46:13.It is true the BBC does operate in a highly competitive marketplace, and

:46:14. > :46:18.the days when 20 million people would sit down at the same time to

:46:19. > :46:27.watch East Enders, as important as it still is, are all part gone. The

:46:28. > :46:31.companies and organisations that are succeeding now are more likely to be

:46:32. > :46:35.the ones that are managing to move beyond a merely transactional

:46:36. > :46:39.relationship with their customers and indeed their workforce, and

:46:40. > :46:46.build a real connection and relationship with those customers.

:46:47. > :46:55.The chance to vote every Saturday... Every Sunday, I beg your pardon, who

:46:56. > :47:07.is axed from strictly come dancing, is not enough. The Co-op party which

:47:08. > :47:13.I am privileged to chair has been running for some time a People's BBC

:47:14. > :47:16.petition calling for the BBC to be neutralised, allowing licence fee

:47:17. > :47:24.payers to become members and owners of the BBC. Solving that membership

:47:25. > :47:28.deficit and the accountability gap at the same time. There are a number

:47:29. > :47:33.of ways in which those membership and ownership rights could be

:47:34. > :47:37.exercised, but the key is the right of members to choose representatives

:47:38. > :47:42.to sit on the board. This means government giving up the bulk of its

:47:43. > :47:52.powers to appoint the BBC board. To achieve the independence that my

:47:53. > :48:03.honourable friend terraces so much. -- issues could be debated and

:48:04. > :48:08.decided at an AGM open for all to attend in person or online. This

:48:09. > :48:14.would help to create more accountability of those at the very

:48:15. > :48:19.top of the BBC for how the go about their exercising their

:48:20. > :48:24.responsibilities. It would begin to deal with the accountability gap, it

:48:25. > :48:27.would be an important line of defence against political

:48:28. > :48:31.interference. There are already many organisations across the public and

:48:32. > :48:38.private sectors with similar style mutual structures. Employee each

:48:39. > :48:44.other and businesses like John Lewis, where the board directors are

:48:45. > :48:49.all elected, the National Trust which is responsible for crucial

:48:50. > :48:54.assets that we value in this country, elect a member 's counsel

:48:55. > :49:02.from which its board is drawn. Nationwide all its customers a vote

:49:03. > :49:07.on the board, foundation hospitals similarly give patients the chance

:49:08. > :49:15.to influence who sits on key decision-making bodies in hospitals.

:49:16. > :49:19.Increasingly, across Europe, many private sector companies ensure that

:49:20. > :49:29.at least one board member is directly elected. Big companies like

:49:30. > :49:33.Deutsche Bank, EDF in France have directors who are elected by their

:49:34. > :49:38.employees. If mutual structures can work in other parts of the private

:49:39. > :49:41.and public sectors, surely it is time now to think about whether they

:49:42. > :49:46.can solve some of the challenges that might honourable friend for

:49:47. > :49:55.Tottenham and others have pointed out still very much exist BBBC.

:49:56. > :50:02.Thank you, and I hope I can add to this excellent debate. I

:50:03. > :50:08.congratulate my honourable friend taking this to the floor of the

:50:09. > :50:14.House. Diversity is something that is very important, certainly in

:50:15. > :50:17.something like the BBC, a broadcaster that should be a mirror

:50:18. > :50:22.of the society it seeks to serve when giving impressions of that

:50:23. > :50:30.country. It is long past the day since we had the 1950s cut glass

:50:31. > :50:36.accent. If these voices exist, they should be reflected on television

:50:37. > :50:41.and not just received pronunciation accents like my own. The BBC has to

:50:42. > :50:46.serve more widely, across the world. A recent example, the founding of

:50:47. > :51:01.the tremendous Icelandic drama suspense series Trapped. This is

:51:02. > :51:06.something we should acknowledge and something I hope to develop later in

:51:07. > :51:10.my speech. When the message is the UK and the vehicle they are carrying

:51:11. > :51:15.has to contain the family of nations that are still in the current UK and

:51:16. > :51:19.the people within those nations in all their diversity as well. That is

:51:20. > :51:23.why I strongly support the words by the honourable member of Tottenham.

:51:24. > :51:29.One of the first issues I had with the BBC when I was elected to the

:51:30. > :51:33.south in 2005 was the BBC had in its infinite wisdom decided to change

:51:34. > :51:37.the weather map. It changed the angle of the map which meant

:51:38. > :51:41.Scotland was hardly seen at all. This had important knock-on effects

:51:42. > :51:47.to many in my constituency who rely on the BBC's isobar chart is the

:51:48. > :51:52.most important for looking at wind for oncoming days. With a bit of

:51:53. > :51:57.pressure, BBBC did change the weather map to a better angle to

:51:58. > :52:06.represent Scotland but it still does not get its chip graphical

:52:07. > :52:13.representation BBC weather map is. I do think in the meantime that other

:52:14. > :52:19.places have coming to replace some of the work or some of the service

:52:20. > :52:26.that the BBC was relying upon. I hope the BBC can revisit this policy

:52:27. > :52:36.of having a map that is not geographically representative, which

:52:37. > :52:40.was always the purpose of maps. Life imitates art, back in 1992 in New

:52:41. > :52:47.York, it is a powerful line and people should see themselves as they

:52:48. > :52:53.are betrayed accurately and fairly and without stereotypes. That has to

:52:54. > :52:58.be true of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Liverpool, Tottenham, women

:52:59. > :53:05.and ethnic minorities. I wish the member for Tottenham well. Happily,

:53:06. > :53:13.I have not been tested to go into that bearpit myself. I will

:53:14. > :53:18.certainly watching if he goes on. The BBC has to reflect the languages

:53:19. > :53:21.of these islands, especially the older language is the Britain that

:53:22. > :53:27.predate the migration of English into Britain, and I refer to Welsh

:53:28. > :53:35.and Gaelic as well as Cornish. I hope Cornish is getting a play on

:53:36. > :53:38.the nation's airwaves. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving

:53:39. > :53:43.way. On the subject of languages of the nations of the UK, does my

:53:44. > :53:48.honourable friend agree with me that it was particularly wrong of the

:53:49. > :54:01.Department for Culture, Media and Sport to cut ?1 million, 100% of the

:54:02. > :54:04.budget for BBC Alba,? I think my honourable friend makes an

:54:05. > :54:09.absolutely excellent point and I wonder if you're telepathic because

:54:10. > :54:13.he certainly guessed were going next in my speech. It was disappointing

:54:14. > :54:17.in the Autumn Statement to see that million pounds being cut from Gaelic

:54:18. > :54:24.by the Westerners to government to BBC Alba, a large percent of its

:54:25. > :54:31.funding, fact all of it. It wasn't done as a wider part of the voodoo

:54:32. > :54:36.economic that is the Chancellor's austerity, as it was at a time when

:54:37. > :54:44.an extra ?150 million was being found for museums in London. I would

:54:45. > :54:51.add my voice to the frustration of the Honourable member who feels the

:54:52. > :55:00.north of Ingrid is being penalised. -- north of England. We have to ask

:55:01. > :55:07.ourselves, what exactly is being funded? To me, as a consumer of

:55:08. > :55:14.Gaelic TV TV and radio, a recent series was utterly outstanding with

:55:15. > :55:19.World War I testimonies and it struck me, listening to that, that a

:55:20. > :55:26.whole history of the UK was closed, to many people who didn't speak the

:55:27. > :55:31.language. Who didn't get the testimony of soldiers, the poems and

:55:32. > :55:34.songs from World War I composed by many in the trenches. At least it

:55:35. > :55:41.was being broadcast and understood by those who did speak the language,

:55:42. > :55:47.and to some extent, coming alive in that. Perhaps it was up to us to end

:55:48. > :55:51.conversations -- in conversations inform others. It leaves me with the

:55:52. > :55:55.impression that my inability to speak Welsh is leaving me closed to

:55:56. > :56:00.another aspect of life in the UK and these islands of other experiences

:56:01. > :56:06.that may have happened in World War I and World War II and I think that

:56:07. > :56:16.the job of broadcasters is to be diverse in the languages as well as

:56:17. > :56:24.ethnicities that are in the UK. Of course one of the programmes that I

:56:25. > :56:28.enjoy the most, the pre-7 o'clock light entertainment programme, is

:56:29. > :56:33.absolutely excellent. I would hope and pray he never gets spotted and

:56:34. > :56:44.poached away into English broadcasting. I would hope he would

:56:45. > :56:52.stay with the radio station. A great leave acclaimed drama series, could

:56:53. > :56:57.be exported to Iceland. They could be importing drama series from other

:56:58. > :57:01.parts of the world and using Gaelic subtitles.

:57:02. > :57:10.Certainly, the Gaelic language has been opened up to a wider audience

:57:11. > :57:11.in Scotland with many who don't speak Gaelic tuning in quite

:57:12. > :57:33.regularly to listen to BBC a la par. I think this is changing, I hope it

:57:34. > :57:40.is because they certainly have my confidence and the confidence of my

:57:41. > :57:47.party to be as good as the broadcasters of Copenhagen, Dublin,

:57:48. > :57:56.reckons it -- recce Vic, or indeed London.

:57:57. > :58:08.A language portal of 68,000 people is producing fantastic television

:58:09. > :58:12.and radio than a tan it -- talent pool that is larger than that. I

:58:13. > :58:17.have no doubt it can produce fantastic programming and will

:58:18. > :58:23.enhance our lives as viewers and consumers of these programmes. I

:58:24. > :58:26.wish him well and his colleagues that are trying to achieve exactly

:58:27. > :58:38.that and the saps some of us could get our lives enriched... It was

:58:39. > :58:50.meant to be nations should speak unto nation and that was meant to be

:58:51. > :58:56.a two-way progress -- process. 34 languages Berg being broadcast by

:58:57. > :59:01.the BBC on a weekly basis on the World Service, a unique selling

:59:02. > :59:06.point the UK has and it is quite a crown jewel and something where we

:59:07. > :59:11.have been involved in the earlier debate where we have not had such a

:59:12. > :59:16.great international reputation, we do have in the UK a good

:59:17. > :59:22.international reputation with the BBC's World Service. Wider

:59:23. > :59:29.diversity, broadcasters in the UK, some have to be commended. Sky with

:59:30. > :59:38.its broadcasting of Irish hurling. It has made it my favourite sport to

:59:39. > :59:45.watch on television. Having played the Scottish version, I would not

:59:46. > :59:56.like to see how I would get on in hurling. I have to commend Sky also

:59:57. > :00:03.on a conversation I had with the chief of Sky Sports. I asked about

:00:04. > :00:08.Shinji, it was not long before he had a programme about that as well.

:00:09. > :00:20.About one old Ross, the fantastic player. Thereon much more to be done

:00:21. > :00:24.on a sporting and on age able -- General diversity bases. One other

:00:25. > :00:29.plea I would make to broadcasters on the diversity front is not just over

:00:30. > :00:35.the tea within the UK but to look to extend diversity across borders.

:00:36. > :00:41.There are a number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland that would like

:00:42. > :00:50.to get over the border that is the Irish Gaelic language and the Irish

:00:51. > :00:56.Republic might benefit from the tremendous programming BBC Alba.

:00:57. > :01:00.This debate, I congratulate the member for Tottenham, it is