Paddy Tipping is my MP

The recent war in Iraq has angered me more than any political issue that I can remember. Not only was it a really bad call on a number of practical issues, but it seems almost certain that No.10 deliberately misled the country on the likelihood and scale of the threat of Iraq and its suspected WMDs. As the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said in a recent interview:

"You have to hold public officials to the highest possible standard. If we start saying that anything less than the highest standard is tolerable, then we are really destroying democracy, because democracy exists on the basis of truth."

This sums it up for me - why what has happened is absolutely intolerable - if a democratic government deceives its people, then it is no longer a democracy. Even decent MPs, such as Paddy Tipping, by allowing Blair et al. to escape any consequences are damaging this precious and surprisingly delicate British asset.

I wrote to my MP to let him know how I felt about it, and to warn him that I would not vote for him while Blair, and those who colluded with him, remain the leaders of his party. The letter and his reply (annotated by me in coloured italics) follow. You can also see a scan of the original by clicking the thumbnail on the right

Dear Mr Tipping

I am writing to you, having recently read both 'A Case to Answer' - the impeachment report prepared for Adam Price MP, and the Butler Report. Based on these, I believe that the prima facie evidence that Tony Blair misled the country is extremely strong. For example he stated that the intelligence picture was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative', whereas it is now quite clear that it was none of these. Even though the JIC assessments note that evidence of WMD was extremely patchy and potentially unreliable, they were criticised by the Butler Report for firming up this evidence unjustifiably. Then Number 10 chose to remove these already inadequate caveats. To change, in effect, 'Iraq may have WMDs' to 'Iraq has WMDs' is more than a presentational change, it is a substantive change that is difficult to interpret as anything other than intentional deceit.

The remits of the Butler and the Hutton report were sufficiently narrow that this key question was not addressed - did the PM and his close circle deliberately mislead both parliament and the country? Even if he acted in good faith at the time, it is the duty of ministers to 'correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity'. He has certainly failed to do this, which alone is grounds for resignation, as in the cases of Beverley Hughes and Peter Mandelson.

It is not easy to admit a mistake, especially if it has had such serious consequences, but his dogged assertions that 'the intelligence was correct' even after key sections had been withdrawn by MI6, do not inspire confidence in either his honesty or his judgement. Likewise it may be difficult for MPs who supported the war, such as yourself, to be open about what happened and to admit that if they had known then what they know now, their position would have been different.

I note that you chose not to support Early Day Motion 716 in March 2003:

" That this House does not believe that British forces should be required to participate in a war against Iraq unless all of the following conditions are met (a) that there is clear evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to peace, (b) that there is a substantive motion of this House authorising military action, (c) that there is an express resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations authorising the use of military force against Iraq and (d) that all other policy options have been exhausted. "

I was surprised by this, as none of these requirements seem particularly controversial. Perhaps in any response to this letter, you could clarify which of them was unacceptable to you.

I was further disappointed by the recent dismissal of the potential impeachment by Keith Vaz as 'silly'. The case for impeachment makes extremely serious allegations. If they are false then it is imperative that the PM publicly defends the integrity of himself and his government. If they are true then he must be removed from office. Neither of these possibilities are 'silly' and to suggest that they are is an insult to parliament and to the electorate.

Following the conspicuous lack of WMDs, the government has been drawing attention to the despotic nature of Saddam Hussein in an attempt to justify the war. Action against Iraq, however, could only be justified if he was a threat or in material breach of the existing UN resolutions. The JIC themselves assessed that he was not an external threat, and there was also no hard evidence that Iraq actually was in breach of the UN resolution. They were co-operating, albeit grudgingly with inspections, and there was no sign of WMDs. As neither of these conditions was satisfied then it would appear likely that the war was in breach of international law, in which case its sponsors must not be allowed to remain in office.

If Blair remains PM then I would be unable to support you, as a candidate for his party, at the next general election. Furthermore, I cannot see any grounds for not supporting a formal impeachment process in order that a proper debate can be held; were you to withhold your support then I regret that I would no longer be willing to support your election as my parliamentary representative, regardless of your stance on other issues. I hope that you will find time to respond in order to explain your position on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Boustred

Dear Mr Boustred,

It was good of you to write setting out your views. Like you, I had serious reservations about the Government's policy on Iraq and did not vote for the deployment of British troops. (This was the vote on 18th March 2003 - All that Commons records show is that he did not vote - this may have been a deliberate act of dissent, or for another reason, such as he was too ill to attend. It is not made clear in this letter) There is no doubt that Saddam's regime had once possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them. Nevertheless, I felt that the weapons inspectors should be allowed to continue their work and military action should be sanctioned by the United Nations. In my view Iraq did not pose a real and immediate threat.(I couldn't agree more. This view was also shared by the Joint Intelligence Committee, who did not believe he was likely to use any WMDs he had unless attacked. What I don't understand is, given these views, why he didn't vote against the deployment of troops, or in favour of one of the anti-war motions and amendments.)

You mentioned Early Day Motion 716. In the current Parliamentary Session there are over 1,600 EDM's tabled. As a general rule I tend not to sign EDM's.(Admittedly out of 1,600 odd EDMs he only signed 54 in the 02/03 session, but for example only a month after EDM 716, which tried to curtail the Government’s headlong rush to war, he found time to sign EDM 971 congratulating the BBC on 80 years of weather forecasting.)

I have had many discussions with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues about Iraq. You will remember that originally, accusations were made that the Prime Minister had "lied". All the inquiries have concluded that this was not the case.He says that the inquiries cleared the PM of lying, but it would be more accurate to say that they did not find him guilty of lying, and that is because they did not examine that specific question. The Hutton report cleared him of intentional deceit on a single issue - the 45 minute claim, but the gap between the intelligence he received, and the statements he made, has been beyond the direct remit of any inquiry to date. In any case, many of the conclusions so far have been damning. The Foreign Affairs Committee noted of its investigation into the Iraq war

"We conclude that continued refusal by Ministers to allow this committee access to intelligence papers and personnel, on this inquiry and more generally, is hampering it in the work which Parliament has asked it to carry out."

It is very clear that they felt that they were unable to fully examine the issue and to reach a definitive conclusion because of deliberate obstruction by the Government. ) I take the view that the intelligence provided was, at best, sparse and a favourable presentation was put on it to support the Governments case. I don't believe that Parliament was misled but I have no doubt that serious mistakes took place. (I think this is plainly incorrect, especially With the benefit of hindsight, as it is now clear that the PM was wrong. Many of the statements which he made to the House, such as the claim that Iraq could use WMDs within 45 minutes, have subsequently been shown to be false. By definition, anyone who believed him (and why should they not?) was being misled. The only question is that when he misled, did he do so intentionally or negligently? Normal parliamentary protocol is that even unintentionally misleading the house is a matter for resignation if the mistake is not corrected at the earliest possible opportunity - whereas the PM appears to have been one of the last people to admit that what he had said was wrong.)

It's important to remember that the Iraqi people celebrated when Saddam was overthrown. After three decades of dictatorship the important thing now is to rebuild its democratic structures and to release the countries undoubted potential. The greater involvement of the United Nations and other countries is an important step forward. The task is extremely difficult and I would prefer to put my efforts into building a new future not reflecting on the past.(I don't see these as incompatible. Properly calling the PM et al to account for misleading the country need not detract from reconstructing Iraq.)

Given your interest in Adam Price's initiative you will know that impeachment procedures have not been used in modern times. (Subsequently the legal advice from Matrix chambers is that impeachment is still valid and appropriate for use in this instance) Mr Price's Motions has yet to appear on the Common's Order Paper. I suspect that he is finding it difficult to persuade the Commons Authorities that it conforms to Commons procedures. In any case, there is little prospect of an early debate and vote. (The motion has now been successfully tabled. Presumably from earlier comments, Paddy will not be supporting it, although he avoids taking any specific position here)

There are issues that I disagree with you on but I hope this sets out my view. If you would like to discuss the real concerns in more detail, please give me a ring.

Yours sincerely,

Paddy Tipping, MP