|
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South)
It is significant that, with
a couple of notable eccentric exceptions, the majority
of Members who have spoken against the Bill have done
so not on the basis of principle—parliamentary
scrutiny and approval of proposed armed conflicts—but
on the two themes of necessity and the problems associated
with implementation. I shall deal with those themes
one at a time.
On necessity, it is argued
that following the events in the run-up to the Iraq
war a convention has been established or the principles
have been set, or the promises have been made, that
make any future move towards armed conflicts a matter
that will inevitably come before the House for a substantive
vote. That may be the case. It may be that it is inevitable,
now that the precedent has been set and perhaps a
convention established. However, that is not the point.
It is not the point because
such conventions and such principles would not provide
for a proper legal framework for consideration. They
would not provide for reliable information to be in
front of the House on which it could base its consideration
and its decision; they would not allow for proper
scrutiny; and they would not guarantee approval in
advance. It is important that we have a proper legal
framework. Perhaps it is even more important that
that framework is established to ensure proper consideration
not only in the Houses of Parliament but in the Government.
If one thing is evident from the way that we went
into the conflict in Iraq it is that such proper consideration
did not take place. The House should support the Bill
for the sake of the Government's democratic accountability
and proper consideration within Government.
The Bill is not just about
Iraq, although many of us still feel very bitterly
the anger and betrayal of that appalling blunder,
and are reminded of it with every suicide bomb that
explodes and every day's newspapers that we open in
which we read of events there. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) pointed out earlier,
we should support the Bill not just because of our
opposition to the war in Iraq, but because of our
experience of the way in which we went into that war.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have
spoken today in support of the Bill may take very
different views on the armed conflict, but they want
to ensure that any future potential armed conflict
is given proper consideration in the House and by
the Government.
The other criticism of the
Bill has related to problems associated with it. Inevitably,
some legitimate issues have been raised about the
Bill's implementation, but all are matters that can
be sorted out in Committee. In my very limited experience,
the problems with the Bill are no greater than those
in many other Bills making their first appearance
in the House.
When we were moving inexorably,
as it seemed, towards the Iraq war, many inside and
outside the House campaigned under the banner "Not
in our name". The Bill gives us an opportunity
to say that, in future, without proper consideration,
information and consent, it will be never again in
our name.
|