Global Policy Forum

I declined from the outset to have a Liberal Democrat presence on the Butler Inquiry. I made it clear I had no quarrel with Lord Butler, but I considered the inquiry's remit too narrow. Of course, it's important that we are reassured about the quality and nature of the intelligence material offered to the Prime Minister. We were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which posed a clear, immediate and direct threat to our national security. It was not true.

But what I also believed then, and still believe, is that we need a more fundamental investigation into the political judgments which led us into war. The intelligence is only one aspect of the central question about why we went to war on this false premise. When the Prime Minister telephoned me about the Butler Inquiry, he refused even to countenance a more wide-ranging public investigation. In the House of Commons, he repeated his arguments. He said that such an inquiry would be 'profoundly undemocratic'. He knew, of course, it could lead to his downfall.

There was a further underlying consideration about my refusal take part. The Butler committee has met in private and all the evidence has been given in private. Clearly, when dealing with intelligence matters, there are particular concerns about protecting sources and their security. But the Iraq war has generated profound public anxiety. In such circumstances, any process which excludes politicians from public scrutiny inhibits public confidence. If, when this report is published, there is a lingering sense that the full story has still not been told, the public may again (as they did over the Hutton Report) feel short-changed - further eroding faith in our political processes.

The fundamental question posed by the Iraq war is about judgment - specifically the Prime Minister's. He made the decisions that took us to war. He overrode the concerns of all of us who believed the case for war had not been made. He chose to follow George Bush at any cost. We need a full explanation. The Iraq war was not a minor political mistake. Ripples of consequence are still spreading outwards and it may be years before it is possible to assess the true extent of the damage that Tony Blair has done.

Trust in the Prime Minister has been seriously eroded. The public - already weary of spin and media manipulation - turned out in vast numbers to protest against the war and were ignored. The bond between Prime Minister and people can never be the same again.

The marginalising of the UN, the rush to war unilaterally with George Bush in defiance of the Security Council, and the fracturing of relations with close neighbouring countries will take years to repair.

The failure to plan effectively for the aftermath of war has left Iraq dangerously unstable and fertile territory for Muslim extremists. Thousands of people have been killed. It is a scandal that no attempt has been made to keep a record of Iraqi deaths.

Then there were the broken promises to implement the road map for peace in Israel; and the distraction from the more serious threat posed by al-Qaeda (which almost certainly had no presence in Iraq then, but does today).

Finally, we are tarnished by the inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners and those who have been held in legal limbo in Guantánamo. The Prime Minister has a special relationship with George Bush, but he has never been prepared to stand up to him to extract any benefit for this country. What is the use of that?

Whatever Lord Butler concludes, I believe it is likely that there will still be a case for an open and unfettered inquiry into the judgments behind this shameful catalogue of events. We need answers which go far beyond the accuracy of '45 minute' claims and the qualifications which should have been used in the infamous dossiers. It is the politicians who are responsible for how the intelligence was used. And it is the Prime Minister's judgment which should be subject to scrutiny.

In the meantime, to take him up on his challenge in the Commons, if it is 'undemocratic' to hold such an inquiry, then the truly democratic way for the people to express a view of his leadership is through the ballot box. I am sure that taunt will not be forgotten this week by the people of Leicester and Birmingham.