I passionately believe we were wrong to invade Iraq but I am second to none in my admiration for the bravery and dedication of our service men and women.

Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations; the single most controversial decision taken by government since Suez.

So Mr Speaker, I am staggered that the Prime Minister is today seeking to compound that error, fatal for so many of Britain’s sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it. Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into the build-up and conduct of the Iraq war for many years, and we can be grateful that finally, the Prime Minister has acceded to that demand. But, as so often, he has taken a step in the right direction but missed the fundamental point.

A secret inquiry will not deliver what Britain needs. Does the Prime Minister not understand that the purpose of an inquiry is not just to produce a set of dry conclusions, but to allow the people of Britain to come to terms with a mistake made in our name?

To allow veterans, and the families and friends of those who gave their lives in this disastrous war, to come to understand how it happened? I have met the families of these soldiers. And just an hour ago I was asked to speak in their name and tell you that nothing short of a fully public inquiry – held in the open – will satisfy them.

Will the Prime Minister not listen to what they need? He says it the inquiry has to be in private to protect national security. But it looks suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor, not Britain. Why else would he want it to report after the general election? It is perfectly possible to have particular sensitive sessions in camera while retaining the fundamental principle that this inquiry should be open to all.

I am grateful that he has listened to my representations and extended the inquiry to cover the origins of the war. And to give it full access to the documents and files it will need. But I am disappointed he made such a feeble attempt to secure consensus on the panel that will conduct the inquiry.

The experience of successfully established inquiries like the one being held in the Netherlands shows that consensus can be secured if the government conducts painstaking consultation. Why did the Prime Minister not even attempt that sort of constructive discussion?

The Government must not be allowed to close the book on this war as it opened it: in secrecy. Last week he stood there and spoke eloquently about the need for more public accountability and transparency. This was his first test. He has failed. He chose secrecy instead.

For six years, we have watched our brave service men and women putting their lives on the line for a war we did not support and cannot understand. To rebuild public trust, the inquiry must be held in public. Will the Prime Minister, even now, reconsider? Will he make this inquiry a healing process or will he continue to deny the British people’s legitimate demands?

Share this: Social networking Social networking Social networking Social networking Social networking

Bookmark:

The Government have suffered a rare defeat, on a Liberal Democrat opposition day motion calling for them to revise their proposals and ensure that an equal right of residence is extended to all Gurkhas.

27 Labour MPs joined Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and others to inflict the Government’s first defeat on an opposition day motion since the 1970s, a sign of the strength of feeling on the issue.

Opening the debate, Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, criticised the Government for its decision back in 2004 to distinguish between those who were discharged from the Gurkhas before 1997 and those who were discharged after. He argued this move led to “some ridiculous and shameful anomalies”, whereby soldiers, including a holder of the Victoria Cross, have been refused residency in Britain because of “inadequate ties to the United Kingdom”.

Chris Huhne Chris highlighted many of the shameful rules the Government is proposing. The most discriminatory being the necessity of twenty years service in the Gurkha regiments. Chris explained, “so many of the Gurkhas – and especially private soldiers and riflemen – serve just fifteen years.” He said, “only officers would have achieved twenty years or more.” Whilst the Government has argued its proposals would allow 10,000 people to claim residency in the UK, Chris argued this figure is more likely to be only 100 given the discriminatory eligibility criteria.

In an impassioned conclusion to his speech Chris asked: “are we to say that people who are prepared to fight and die for our country are not good enough to live in it? This debate is not just about the Gurkhas. It is about the sort of people we are. The House must today find the generosity of spirit to repay in the small way that we can, the enormous debt of gratitude that we owe to the Gurkhas.”

Former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell also spoke in the debate. Sir Ming attacked the Government’s self-proclaimed achievements on helping the Gurkhas. He accused them of reacting to public pressure rather than having a sincere determination to help the Gurkhas, claiming the Government had merely felt “compelled” by the judicial decision to bring the proposals forward.

Sir Ming also criticised the Government’s decoration criteria. He argued that this qualification “is based not on being brave, but on being recognised as having been brave.” He said, “anyone who has been engaged in conflict will say that some of the bravest and most selfless acts of heroism are committed by people who never receive any recognition of any kind whatever.”

The party’s Shadow Defence Secretary Nick Harvey wound up the debate. He said it was bizarre for the Government to suggest that there needed to be an impact assessment on the effect in Nepal of any decision as the decision to allow those, generally younger, Gurkhas who have served since 1997 the right of settlement in the UK would have had far more impact on Nepal than allowing in a relatively smaller number whose service took place long ago.

Nick said that, “sooner or later the Government will end up losing this argument, having to give more ground and be seen to have done so with appalling bad grace, having been dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way”.

When the votes were counted, the Liberal Democrat motion was passed by 267 to 246 votes and the Government was defeated.

In a statement after the debate the Government announced a rethink and said new proposals would be published before the summer recess.

Click here to read Nick Clegg’s response to the historic vote

Gurkhas motion -

That this House regrets the Government’s recent statement outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom; recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years; notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here; believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since; is concerned that the Government’s new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority; further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

Bookmark:

The Metropolitan Police’s decision not to open a police inquiry into members of the House of Lords who allegedly claimed to have secured amendments for paying clients has been condemned by Chris Huhne.

The Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary said:

“I can understand the difficulties facing the police given the unreformed and unclear state of the law on bribery, which is subject to recent reform proposals from the Law Commission.

“However, this is a disappointing decision because it is simply false to say that internal procedures will be able to deal with these cases, given that there is not even a mechanism for expelling miscreants.

“Cash for amendments is even more serious than the cash for questions scandal, which caused the Commons to clean up its act in the Nineties.

“There is a clear legal precedent, established by Mr Justice Buckley in 1992, for the prosecution of a Member of Parliament for the common law offence of bribery in the case against Harry Greenway MP. Members of Parliament, including members of the Lords, should not be above the law. It should apply equally to all of us.”

Bookmark:

Nick Clegg 20,988 Chris Huhne 20,477 On his election Nick said, “I want to thank the Liberal Democrats for giving me the chance to lead our great party. It is a privilege to follow in the footsteps of Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell, who have all contributed so much to our party. I look forward to working with them all during my leadership.

“I would also like to pay tribute to both Vince Cable and Chris Huhne. Vince has
been an inspiration as stand-in leader with both his forensic questioning and his memorable put downs. Chris and I saw a lot of each other during the leadership contest. Now we will be working together as close colleagues to ensure that our party goes on to further electoral success. I am delighted that both Vince and Chris are going to be part of my top team over the coming years.

“We have a golden opportunity for our party. Gordon Brown presides over an increasingly stale, incompetent, and desperate government. David Cameron and the Tories don’t know what they stand for anymore.

“We know what we stand for: a more Liberal Britain. I am confident that with hard work and dedication we can turn our beliefs into reality and change our country for the better.

“Under my leadership our party will be a self-confident, radical, and energetic party. Together we can break the stifling two-party system and change Britain for good. That is my aim. I hope you will join me in making it a reality.”

Chris Huhne said,

“We’ve elected a leader who is going to take us from strength to strength. Good luck Nick, congratulations and God’s speed. It was a hugely close contest, and working together as a Party, we have every right to be optimist for the future – Britain’s liberal future.”

 

• Read Nick’s acceptance speech here.
• Watch Nick’s exclusive YouTube film here.

 

 

Photo credit: Alex Folkes / Fishnik.com

 

Bookmark:

Today I’m unveiling the recommendations on the future of Trident drawn up by our Liberal Democrat policy working group. These proposals will be presented to the Federal Policy Committee and the conference in Harrogate will have the final say in spring.

The proposals call for Britain’s nuclear weapons to be cut by half. This significant cut would give us the opportunity to kick-start multilateral disarmament talks, whilst also demonstrating to all countries that the UK takes seriously its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Our proposals also call for the life of the current submarine-based system to be extended, which would give us until at least 2014 to judge progress on tackling nuclear proliferation, the state of multilateral disarmament talks and the security situation in the world before having to decide whether or not to commit to a new system.

I believe it would be unwise at this time for Britain to abandon its nuclear weapons altogether. But neither should we spend tens of billions of pounds in the meantime.

A deterrent of approximately half the current size, and extending the life of the current submarine system, would be sufficient to provide for Britain’s ultimate security until we have more certainty about proliferation.

A nuclear weapon-free world is highly desirable. Cutting our stockpile in half would send a strong signal that nuclear disarmament is back on the international agenda and that Britain is prepared to act first.

Britain could at anytime choose to scrap its nuclear deterrent completely, and this option remains on the table.

You can read more about these proposals on the party’s website at

Bookmark:

However you can watch it now in advance at:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/cameron-brown-and-iraq.html

You can also help spread the word and let other people know about the film by linking to from your website or blog, if you have one, or by going to the YouTube version of the film and sharing it with your friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qid0lPmacsw

Now is a good time to be promoting our views. In yesterday’s Queen’s Speech debate, Ming Campbell gave a very strong performance, pointing out how Labour is addicted to legislation, as if the answer to any and every problem is to pass another law. You may have seen some of the very positive coverage we got, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6152072.stm

You can of course help support our campaigning, and the production of our TV broadcasts, by making a donation at https://www.libdems.org.uk/support/join.html?ref=crem  {youtube}qid0lPmacsw{/youtube}

Bookmark:

Climate chaos was also the theme of our TV broadcast on Thursday night. If you missed it, you can watch it again at: http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/lib-dem-ppb.html

We have also released a more light-hearted film to back-up our Green Tax Switch campaign, which you can watch at http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/new-tory-labour.html

Finally, if you want to read Ming Campbell’s conference speech in full (rather than just the snippets the media normally report!) it is at http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/conferencedoc.html?&navPage=conference.html&id=7723 and reactions to the speech, along with other broadcasts from conference by Paddy Ashdown, Jim Wallace and others, can be watched at http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/webcasts.html

Best wishes

Chris Rennard
Chief Executive, Liberal Democrats

Bookmark: