The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
measuring
mortality in conflict zones. The overriding message is that there
are no
accurate or
reliable figures of deaths in Iraq.”142
228.
On 18 October,
in response to a Parliamentary Question from
Sir Menzies
Campbell,
Mr Blair stated:
“It is
correct that innocent civilians are dying in Iraq. But they are not
being killed by
British
soldiers. They are being killed by terrorists and those from
outside who are
229.
Researchers at
Oxford University (Mr Sean Gourley and Professor Neil
Johnson)
and Royal
Holloway, University of London (Professor Spagat) issued a press
release
on 19
October, claiming that there were “serious flaws” in the
methodology used by the
Lancet
study which
acted to inflate its casualty estimate.144
230.
In response to
a question from Mr Jeremy Corbyn on 6 November, Mr Ingram
set
out the
Government’s position on the Lancet
study:
“Maintaining
records of civilian deaths in Iraq is ultimately a matter for
the
Government
of Iraq and we believe they are best placed to monitor the
situation.
The
Lancet
report is
one of a number of recent studies … none of which can
be
regarded as
definitive. The figures in the Lancet
report are
significantly higher than
other
casualty estimates.”145
231.
Professor
Anderson revisited the Lancet
study in March
2007, following Mr Straw’s
request for
further advice on the study in the light of the public exchanges
since its
publication.146
Professor
Anderson wrote to Mr Straw on 19 March, stating that
while
there was
“clearly a possibility of [sampling] bias”:
“I
reiterate my earlier advice, which acknowledged that bias and
moderate
confidence
bounds remain in the study, and that at this stage I see no value
in either
criticising
the study or engaging in the public debate.”
232.
Later that
month, following the release of papers relating to the
Lancet
study
under the
Freedom of Information Act, the Government was asked how it could
accept
the
Lancet
study’s
methodology but reject its findings.147
A
Government spokesperson
responded:
“The
[Lancet
study]
methodology has been used in other conflict situations,
notably
the
Democratic Republic of Congo. However, the Lancet
figures are
much higher
142
Email FCO
[junior official] to FCO [junior official], 16 October 2006, ‘PMQs
Deaths of Iraqis’.
143
House of
Commons, Official
Report, 18
October 2006, column 869.
144
Oxford
University/Royal Holloway, University of London, 19 October
2006, Lancet
study fundamentally
flawed:
death toll too high.
145
House of
Commons, Official
Report, 6
November 2006, column 810W.
146
Minute
Anderson to Hickey, 19 March 2007, ‘Iraq: Mortality After the 2003
Invasion of Iraq:
a Cross‑Sectional
Cluster Sample Survey – Lancet
October
2006’.
147
BBC, 26
March 2007, Newshour
special investigation – Iraq civilian casualties.
210