There is one thing on which every single speaker in this debate and everyone who is watching it from outside will agree—at this moment we live in an extraordinarily dangerous, difficult and complex world, a world we do not understand and in which all our livelihoods, interests and ways of life are under threat. I pay absolute tribute to the very heavyweight, well informed and passionate speeches that we have heard so far, typified by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has great knowledge of Iraq.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I stood against him for the post of Chairman of the Defence Committee, and this is my first opportunity to say that I am very glad he won. He is doing an extremely good job of it and I congratulate him on that.
I hope that I will not reduce the high quality of the debate if I do not focus on Ukraine, Syria or the rest of the difficulties mentioned in the topic of this debate as much as on two procedural points. I hope they will not be unduly dry for the House, but there are many others better qualified than I to speak on the substantive matters that we are debating.
First, I very much welcome the fact that we have this full day’s substantive debate. That would not be the case if it had not been announced by the Prime Minister during PMQs last week and that is quite wrong. We usually have to compete with Backbench Business Committee debates on very worthy and worthwhile things such as animals in circuses. We used to have full, substantive debates in this House on foreign affairs and on defence, and I very much hope that we can find a way of returning to those days. At times like this, we ought to be certain that we can have full debates on these matters.
The second procedural matter I want to raise involves me in what might be described as a putative declaration of interests. Later this afternoon I will be launching a book that I have written entitled, “Who Takes Britain to War?” I have not earned a single penny from it so far. Indeed, most of my friends probably reckon that I will not earn very many pennies from it in future either, and may never have to declare it. None the less, it is pertinent to the remarks that I intend to make.
It is very easy to say that we should have a vote in this House before we deploy soldiers. Of course, that is an easy and a populist thing to say—most people would agree with it. In the past 500 years, we have taken part in umpteen wars. There is only one year since the second world war when a British soldier has not been killed on active service—1968. In every other year we have lost a British soldier on active service. We have taken part in dozens of wars over the years, but on only two occasions have there been substantive votes prior to the deployment of troops. The first was in 2003, when Mr Blair took us to war in Iraq; there were three votes on that occasion. I suspect that not a single person listening to this debate believes that that was the right thing to have done. The second vote was this time last year, on Syria. It may well have had the right outcome, but frankly it was something of a procedural shambles, and I am not certain that we would necessarily want the same thing to occur in future.
My view, and the view I advance in the book, is that there are substantial difficulties in calling for a vote in the way that is very easily done. First, Back Benchers have to be alerted to often secret intelligence, the strategic position and the tactical position on the ground. The Government’s legal advice has to be shared with people like me. We have to rise above vulgar considerations such as votes in a forthcoming general election and do what is right for the nation and for the world. I am not certain that politicising warfare in that way is at all the right thing to do.
My co-author, Mark Lomas QC, thinks that it is wrong to have a vote in this House on every single military action. He would like us to preserve the royal prerogative that we have always used for the past 500 years. I think that genie is out of the bottle and we cannot go back to the days when the Prime Minister and the Executive simply did what they wanted to do. None the less, there are substantial difficulties involved in having substantive votes. For example, if we have the new NATO rapid reaction corps that the Prime Minister announced last weekend, it will have two days to go into action, and it will do so under the control of NATO, not of this House. What if this House disagrees with NATO—or the United Nations, for that matter?
I am therefore seeking to advance the thesis that we must find a new way of doing this. The solution I propose is that we write into law the parameters under which we would go to war. The easiest one would be the age-old theory of just war. That lays down the reasons for warfare, about which we could have a huge debate, including the parameters under which we would decide to go to war. It also lays down the way in which we conduct war—the Geneva conventions are based on the theory of just war—and the way in which we conclude wars: what we do after a war has ended and how we treat enemies and those who have been defeated.
Such theories are as old as the hills and as good as they ever have been. If we were to write them into the law of the land in this House, we would allow the Executive and the Prime Minister to take the country to war as they do at present, but they would no longer do so under the royal prerogative; they would do so under what I would like to call the parliamentary prerogative. It is this House that would lay down precisely what the Executive should do in the future. I think that is a much better way of doing it than bogging ourselves down in votes that we might or might not win.
3.40 pm