Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction Inquiry - 4 Jun 2003 - Division No. 217 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 11 | 290 |
Con | 137 | 1 |
LDem | 44 | 0 |
Total | 205 | 303 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against an independent inquiry into the handling of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. A replacement motion noted the Intelligence and Security Committee is the appropriate body to carry out any inquiry.
The majority of MPs voting voted against the motion:[1]
-
This House
-
recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of being used at 45 minutes' notice;
-
further recalls the Government's contention that these weapons posed an imminent danger to the United Kingdom and its forces;
-
notes that to date no such weapons have been found; and
-
calls for an independent inquiry into the handling of the intelligence received, its assessment and the decisions made by ministers based upon it.
A new motion was proposed in its place:[2]
-
This House:
-
believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee[3] established by Parliament is the appropriate body to carry out any inquiry into intelligence relating to Iraq; and
-
notes in relation to Iraq's disarmament obligations the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483[4]
And this passed without a vote.
|
Iraq — Foreign Affairs Committee Report - 16 Jul 2003 - Division No. 294 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 8 | 297 |
Con | 135 | 1 |
LDem | 46 | 0 |
Total | 202 | 301 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against a judicial inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq.
The majority of MPs voted against the motion:[1]
-
This House
-
welcomes Ninth Report[2] from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Decision to go to war in Iraq, Session 2002-03, HC 813;[3]
-
but notes some reservations by Committee members that it not only had insufficient time but insufficient access to crucial documents to come to comprehensive and definitive conclusions on some of the issues;
-
further notes the recent concerns raised over intelligence material; and
-
calls on the Government to set up a judicial inquiry finally to establish the facts of the matter.
In its place a new motion was proposed:[4]
-
This House
-
welcomes the Ninth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Decision to go to War in Iraq, Session 2002-03, HC 813;
-
notes that substantial oral and written evidence, by and on behalf of the Government, was provided to the Committee;
-
believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee, established by Parliament by statute, is the appropriate body to consider the intelligence relating to Iraq; and
-
notes that this Committee has already begun its inquiry.
This then passed without a further vote.
|
Iraq — Set up of judicial inquiry — rejected - 22 Oct 2003 - Division No. 335 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye (strong) | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 0 | 302 |
Con | 135 | 0 |
LDem | 43 | 0 |
Total | 192 | 305 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against a comprehensive independent judicial inquiry into the Iraq war.
The majority of MPs voted against the motion:[1]
-
This House
-
is concerned at growing public confusion since the summer adjournment as a result of increasingly conflicting accounts of intelligence relating to and events leading up to the recent Iraq war and what has happened since; and
-
calls for the setting up of a comprehensive independent judicial inquiry into the Government's handling of the run-up to the war, of the war itself, and of its aftermath, and into the legal advice which it received.
An alternative motion was proposed in its place and voted through immediately afterwards.[2]
|
Iraq — Judicial Inquiry — Not necessary - 22 Oct 2003 - Division No. 336 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | | No (strong) |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 291 | 0 |
Con | 0 | 132 |
LDem | 0 | 37 |
Total | 294 | 182 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against a further inquiry into the war in Iraq.
Those voting Aye passed the motion:
-
This House
-
notes that the Intelligence and Security Committee, established by Parliament by statute, and the appropriate body to consider the intelligence relating to Iraq, and the Foreign Affairs Committee have both carried out inquiries into matters relating to the decision to go to war in Iraq; further notes that substantial oral and written evidence, by and on behalf of the Government, was provided to both inquiries;
-
believes that there is no case for a further inquiry, including a judicial inquiry; and
-
further believes that, following the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1511 on 17th October 2003, attention should now be focused on building a better future for Iraq and its people, and on offering full support to the coalition, including British military and civilian personnel, and the United Nations in this endeavour.
This motion replaced the motion that was rejected in Division 335.
|
Iraq — Attorney-General's Advice - 9 Mar 2004 - Division No. 80 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 4 | 283 |
Con | 132 | 0 |
LDem | 44 | 0 |
Total | 194 | 285 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against the publication of the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war in Iraq.
The majority of MPs voted to reject the motion:
-
This House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full.
The new motion in its place passed without a vote:
-
This House
-
notes the long-standing convention, followed by successive governments, that the advice of the Law Officers is given in confidence and is not disclosed publicly;
-
notes, however, the Answer given in the House of Lords by the Attorney General on 17th March 2003[1] which set out his view of the legal basis of the use of force against Iraq, and the letter of the same date from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee giving more detail of the legal position; and
-
believes that the priority now for the Government is to help the Iraqi people rebuild Iraq.
The Attorney-General's legal advice on the legality of the Iraq invasion was the subject in a legal case.[2] It was eventually published a year later during the 2005 general election.[3]
The publication of the advice can be seen as enabling an effective, public, inquiry into the war.
|
Iraq — Select committee inquiry — to be set up - 31 Oct 2006 - Division No. 330 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye (strong) | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 12 | 296 |
Con | 182 | 0 |
LDem | 59 | 0 |
Total | 274 | 299 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war by a select committee of Privy Counsellors.
Those voting No rejected the words of the motion, which read:
-
That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.
They replaced it with a new motion in Division 331
|
Iraq — Select committee inquiry — rejected - 31 Oct 2006 - Division No. 331 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | | No (strong) |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 293 | 8 |
Con | 0 | 180 |
LDem | 0 | 60 |
Total | 296 | 266 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against a further inquiry into the war in Iraq.
Those voting Aye put a new motion before the house to replace the one that was rejected in Division 330, The new motion said:
-
This House, recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task.
This motion then passed without a further vote.
Of the "four separate independent" inquiries, three of them, The Foreign Affairs Committee - The Decision to go to war in Iraq of July 2003, Intelligence and Security Committee - Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence and Assessments of September 2003, and The Hutton Inquiry of January 2004 were held before it was established that Iraq lacked usable weapons of mass destruction and either avoided the question, or concluded that it was too early to tell. The fourth, The Butler Review of July 2004, did not have the support of the opposition parties who considered that its terms of reference were too narrow.
|
Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry - 11 Jun 2007 - Division No. 135 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye (strong) | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 10 | 287 |
Con | 173 | 0 |
LDem | 56 | 0 |
Total | 253 | 289 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against the principle that there should be an inquiry into the Iraq War by an independent committee of Privy Counsellors.
Those voting No rejected the motion which read:
-
This House supports the principle that there should be an inquiry by an independent committee of Privy Counsellors to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath and to make recommendations on the lessons for the future.
The words were replaced by an alternative motion in the next vote.
|
Opposition Day — Iraq Inquiry - 11 Jun 2007 - Division No. 136 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | | No |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 273 | 3 |
Con | 0 | 159 |
LDem | 0 | 56 |
Total | 275 | 230 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against holding an inquiry into the Iraq war at this time.
Those voting Aye passed replaced the words of the previous motion with the following:
-
This House
-
notes the Resolution of 31st October 2006;
-
recognises that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq;
-
further recognises the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath; and
-
therefore declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task.
This amended motion then passed automatically.
|
Iraq Inquiry — Call rejected - 25 Mar 2008 - Division No. 133 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 12 | 298 |
Con | 177 | 0 |
LDem | 59 | 0 |
Total | 273 | 301 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war by an independent committee of privy councillors. In a subsequent vote on an alternative motion the majority of MPs voted against holding an inquiry into the Iraq war at this time but to agree a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate.
The majority voted against the motion before Parliament, which read:
-
This House calls for an inquiry by an independent committee of privy councillors to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq, and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and its aftermath and to make recommendations on lessons to be drawn for the future.[1]
An alternative motion was proposed and voted on in the following division.[2]
|
Iraq Inquiry — Not the right time - 25 Mar 2008 - Division No. 134 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | | No |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 298 | 7 |
Con | 0 | 175 |
LDem | 0 | 58 |
Total | 301 | 261 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against holding an inquiry into the Iraq war at this time but to agree a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate.
The majority voted for the motion before Parliament, which read:
This House --
-
notes the Resolutions of this House of 31st October 2006[1] and 11th June 2007[2] on an Iraq inquiry;
-
recognises that this House has already twice voted against holding an inquiry at these times;
-
further recognises that a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate; but
-
declines to make a proposal for a further inquiry at this time, whilst important operations are underway in Iraq to support the people and government of Iraq.
This replaced a motion in favour of an inquiry that was voted down previously.[4]
The question supported by the majority of MPs was:
That the original words stand part of the Question
|
Iraq War Inquiry — No reasonable impediment — rejected - 25 Mar 2009 - Division No. 88 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | | No |
Lab | 13 | 295 |
Con | 178 | 0 |
LDem | 57 | 0 |
Total | 265 | 303 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war by an independent committee of privy counsellors.
The majority of MPs voted against the motion, which read:[1]
-
This House
-
welcomes the Prime Minister's announcement of 18 December 2008[2] that a fundamental change in the British forces' mission in Iraq will occur by 31 May 2009 at the latest and that at that point the rapid withdrawal of the British troops will take place, taking the total from just under 4,100 to under 400 by 31 July 2009;
-
notes that following this announcement there remains no reasonable impediment to announcing an inquiry on the war in Iraq; and
-
calls for such an inquiry to be conducted by an independent committee of privy counsellors, and to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq, and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and its aftermath, and to make recommendations on lessons to be drawn for the future.
An alternative motion was voted through in the next division.[3]
|
Iraq War Inquiry — Declines to make a proposal - 25 Mar 2009 - Division No. 89 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | | No |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 294 | 12 |
Con | 0 | 179 |
LDem | 0 | 58 |
Total | 302 | 266 |
|
The majority of MPs voted against holding a further inquiry into the Iraq war at this time but to agree a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate.
The majority of MPs voted for the motion, which read:[1]
-
This House
-
notes the Resolutions of this House of 31 October 2006,[2] 11 June 2007[3] and 25 March 2008[4] on an Iraq inquiry;
-
recognises the heroic efforts of the British armed forces in Iraq who have a continuing role which this House should be careful not to undermine;
-
further recognises that a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate, but
-
declines to make a proposal for a further inquiry at this time, whilst important operations are underway in Iraq to support the people and government of Iraq.
(The Prime Minister's Spokesman had insisted that he thought it was okay to make an announcement on when troops would return, but continue to stonewall the announcement of an inquiry whilst the Armed Forces were still operational in Iraq.)[5]
This replaced a motion that was rejected in the previous vote.
|
Iraq Inquiry — Welcomes the inquiry - 24 Jun 2009 - Division No. 156 |
Policy 'Iraq Investigation - Necessary' | Aye | |
David Cairns | Aye | |
Lab | 301 | 11 |
Con | 0 | 171 |
LDem | 0 | 53 |
Total | 306 | 252 |
|
The majority of MPs voted to welcome an inquiry into the Iraq war and to commend the proposal to hold as much of it as possible in public.
The majority of MPs voted for the motion, which read:[1]
-
This House
-
welcomes the announcement by the Government of a wide ranging and independent inquiry to establish the lessons to be learnt from the United Kingdom's engagement in Iraq, which will consider the run-up to the conflict, the military action and reconstruction;
-
recognises the importance of allowing the families of those who gave their lives in Iraq to express their views about the nature and procedures of the inquiry;
-
notes the Prime Minister's request that the chairman of the inquiry consult party leaders and chairs of the relevant parliamentary committees on the scope for taking evidence under oath and holding sessions in public; and
-
commends the proposal by the chair of the inquiry to hold as much of the proceedings as possible in public without compromising national security or the inquiry's ability to report thoroughly and without delay.
This decision to hold as much of the proceedings as possible in public represented a U-turn from the position held before that the issues did not suit a public inquiry.[2][3]
|
The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes
get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the
MP was absent get 2 points.
In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy,
no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting.
In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy,
no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.