Our brave troops who died in Iraq deserve better than this shambles of an inquiry

Instead, the announcement received a universally bad press. The critics attacked the terms of the inquiry, the membership and the secrecy. The criticism was not confined to the editorial writers.

Last Thursday in the House of Lords, I initiated a debate
on Iraq. The Government faced almost total opposition and not just from their political foes.

Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, was scathing. He said "that the form of the inquiry proposed by the Government has been dictated more by their political interest than by the national interest".

Lord Steyn, a former senior judge, said that the arrangements for the inquiry were "patently unacceptable".

For today's debate in the Commons, let us agree that there are fundamentally important issues to be settled. It is the least we can do for the relations of the brave British men and women killed fighting in Iraq.

I was an original supporter of the military action, relying on the government's explanation of why it was necessary. Many others were opposed to the action from the outset. What unites us now is the need to know the truth about the invasion and its aftermath.

We need to know how the decision was made inside government and whether the public was deceived about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed. We need an open inquiry into the most controversial foreign policy decision since the Second World War.

So what are the questions which the Government should answer in today's debate? I would suggest that there are at least four.

First, the Government must explain why they carried out no meaningful consultations with the other political parties about the membership and
the terms of the inquiry. Ministers say the inquiry is based on the Franks report of 1983 into the Falklands conflict.

Yet, on that occasion, the terms of reference were agreed by the then Labour opposition and the membership was agreed by all the major parties in the House of Commons. Labour in government have arrogantly ignored the precedent and have appointed a committee which lacks
military, legal and cabinet experience.

The Franks committee included former Labour cabinet ministers like Merlyn Rees and Harold Lever. A crucial part of this inquiry should be about how exactly the decision to invade was taken and how ministers were informed and involved.

Surely former cabinet ministers with foreign affairs or defence backgrounds would be best qualified to investigate?

Second, the Government must explain why the committee has been told not to "apportion blame".

Everyone is agreed that the planning for the occupation which followed the invasion was lamentable. It was in this period that so many
Iraqis lost their lives. No one knows the exact toll but most commentators would put the total of dead between 100,000 and 150,000 – it could be more – while four million had to flee their homes.

The refugee crisis remains today with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still finding refuge in surrounding countries like Syria and Jordan. Some have experienced too much violence in their own land ever to return. Are we to say that this was entirely the fault of American lack of planning and no blame attaches to the British government?

Third, the Government must admit that Gordon Brown's statement that the inquiry should be in secret was a crass mistake. He praised secrecy as a way of ensuring "full and candid" evidence. It was a total reversal of his claim only a few days before that openness and transparency was the way forward in British politics.

The Government is now in full retreat. The chairman of the inquiry himself has said that he does not agree with Mr Brown and the public has also made it clear that they will not be satisfied with questioning behind closed doors.

All that now remains is for the Government to admit that it was wrong and that the presumption is that evidence will be taken in public.

Fourth, the Government must ask the inquiry to produce an interim report in the early part of next year before the likely date of the next election. The public are entitled to know the team's view before they cast their votes .

Nothing of course shows more starkly this Government's tactics on the Iraq inquiry. They have found bogus reasons to postpone its start. They would have preferred the evidence to be given in secret. Now they are intent on pushing the findings into the long grass after the election.

The public deserve better than this political fudge – and certainly the men and women who fought in Iraq deserve better. My fear is that this inquiry will not settle crucial issues of the invasion of Iraq. The debate will continue. The opportunity will be lost