ONLY seven months after my election I faced perhaps the most personally and professionally challenging decision I have ever had to make.

When Parliament was given the responsibility of making the final decision to approve military action in Syria in December last year, I know that I was not the only MP who bore that responsibility heavily.

Behind the scenes the Government ran private briefing sessions for MPs at Westminster, while a range of NGOs operating in the region and community groups representing Syrians at home and abroad all lobbied parliamentarians about the choice they faced.

At the same time, the library at the House of Commons continued its valuable public service by producing a constantly updated catalogue of impartial policy and background papers on the issue at hand.

In the run-up to the vote there were a range of official statements by Government ministers, delivered from the dispatch box and replicated in the House of Lords, where each MP had their own opportunity to question or probe the Government’s proposals.

The parliamentary debate itself, which was held on December 2, gave an opportunity for elected representatives from all sides of the House and every corner of the country to examine all of the arguments first-hand, and in forensic detail.

When the division bell rang at ten o’clock that evening I was ready to walk through the lobby and cast my vote, sure in the knowledge that I had examined the evidence and come to a clear conclusion on all the information I had in front of me.

No choice before, and I hope none to come, had consumed me as this one had, knowing that lives of the people of Syria and our own servicemen and women, all hung on our collective decision.

I also know that the burden on the shoulders of members of parliament pales into insignificance compared to the burden of those who fight in conflict on our behalf, and with the families of those who lost loved ones fighting in a war based on a lie.

So when I began to read the Chilcot Report last week, I first reflected on the tragic impact of those terrible decisions on these families and those who have been saddled with the physical and mental scars of war, and how they must have been feeling at reading the same report.

It’s fair to say that I was astonished at the approach adopted by Tony Blair and his Labour colleagues to decision-making in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

“I will be with you, whatever.”

Whatever the facts. Whatever the circumstances. Whatever the consequences.

What a damning indictment of a disgraced and diminished figure.

With some notable exceptions, the Chilcot Report makes clear the absence of cabinet government in order to ensure that this vital issue of national security was properly scrutinised at the highest level. The evidence shows that ministers around the cabinet table didn’t effectively challenge the decision to take us to war, nor did they devote their energies to efficiently plan for the aftermath of the campaign of “shock and awe” at the outset of military operations.

It was an unfortunate and sorry sight last week to see a parade of former Blairite acolytes rush to the TV and radio studios to defend their failure, rather than admitting their complicity in the foreign policy disaster that has unfolded in the region over the past decade.

What a contrast with the dignified approach by politicians of principle such as Robin Cook and Charles Kennedy, who were vilified at the time for their views and vindicated by Sir John’s report.

And what a juxtaposition with the dignity shown by the families of those servicemen and servicewomen who gave their lives in the conflict when they spoke to the media following the report’s publication.

It’s worthy of note that Blair’s PR team had eighteen months to look at his sections of the report, which these families had been given three hours to review.

They must be reassured that parliament takes its role seriously and acts truthfully at all times. They deserve no less.

That’s why it’s important that parliament holds the former prime minister to account for his frankly dishonest and deceptive actions.

This isn’t about binding the hands of his successors, but showing that facts and evidence is central to the work we do.

Prior to today’s debate on the implications of the Chilcot Report, a cross-party group of MPs will meet to seek a way for parliament to face up to its responsibility, and to bring the former prime minister back to the House to answer for what he did. I hope to play my part. Lessons must be learned. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated.