UK

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Brown forced to open Iraq inquiry to public scrutiny

Senior military officers and peers welcome decision to hear evidence in public

By Andrew Grice and Kim Sengupta

Lord Butler made a searing criticism of the Government in the Lords

Getty

Lord Butler made a searing criticism of the Government in the Lords

Gordon Brown climbed down yesterday in the face of a growing revolt over his announcement that the inquiry into the Iraq war would be held in private.

Only three days after saying the investigation would be held behind closed doors, the Prime Minister disclosed that some hearings could take place in public after all. His retreat was revealed exclusively in The Independent yesterday.

In a letter to the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, Mr Brown asked him to consider holding some sessions in public. He urged Sir John to hold an open session to "explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry" and to meet relatives of the servicemen killed in Iraq – either in public or in private – to explain how it would operate. He also asked him to take evidence on oath.

The U-turn came on a day in which the Government's original decision came under fierce attack. Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary who investigated the intelligence about Iraqi weapons, said: "There is no prospect that an inquiry conducted entirely in private can purge the national feeling of mistrust.

"I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the Government has been dictated more by the Government's political interest than the national interest."

His searing criticism in a House of Lords debate was echoed by several other peers. And in a rare intervention in British politics, the former prime minister Sir John Major said: "The arrangements currently proposed run the risk of being viewed sceptically by some, and denounced as a whitewash by others. I am astonished the Government cannot understand this."

Last night Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Lord Chancellor and a close ally of Tony Blair, also voiced his displeasure at the plans to keep proceedings behind closed doors. Appearing on the BBC's Question Time he said: "If we're going to have an inquiry at all, it's got to be largely in public. There are so many lingering issues that if it's not done in public people won't have confidence in [it]."

The Prime Minister's spokesman insisted that a private investigation had never been a "theological issue". Mr Brown, in Brussels for a summit of EU leaders, told The Independent: "I am in favour of openness and transparency and we balance that with the interests of national security and the desire of people to give the information they want to the inquiry."

The furore exposed signs of tension in the Cabinet over the issue. Allies of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, accused the Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, of point-scoring, trying to undermine Mr Miliband and of occupying the "moral high ground" by calling on Wednesday for the inquiry to be as open as possible. A diplomatic source said: "One cannot help feeling that Ed Balls saw that a lot of Labour backbenchers would be against the format and tried to exploit the situation – surprising considering how close he is to Gordon Brown."

Mr Balls's subsequent claim that what he had meant was that he was in favour of the public giving evidence to the inquiry, rather than making the proceedings public, was described by one Foreign Office source as "disingenuous" and "laughable".

Ministers accused Mr Balls of flexing his muscles after Mr Brown dropped a plan to install him as chancellor two weeks ago. Mr Balls has taken a more upbeat line on future levels of health and education spending than the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who kept his job in the ministerial shake-up.

William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that Mr Brown's concessions did not go far enough. "We need to see a proper U-turn by the Prime Minister, not a half-hearted measure, in order to ensure that this inquiry is conducted in the way that the public and Parliament of this country deserve," he said.

Brown allies accused the Tories of "playing politics", saying they had told the Government they would support evidence being heard in private and then pulled the rug from under it.

Senior military officers welcomed the Prime Minister's climbdown.

Major General Julian Thompson, the former commander of the Royal Marines, said: "It is a pity that the Government could not foresee the disquiet which would be caused by the initial decision to hold the inquiry in private. The Independent deserves much credit for generating a debate on the matter and questioning the need for this kind of secrecy. I think it is common sense that the public has the right to as much information as possible." General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army at the time of the invasion, stressed that the sessions "must be heard in public whenever possible" to ensure "that there was no public suspicion of a cover up".

Major General Tim Cross, one of the British officers most extensively involved in the campaign, said: "I am personally very pleased that the committee has now been allowed the right to hear evidence in public. This is certainly a step in the right direction."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

its those other people
[info]britfree wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:27 am (UTC)
a botched messy political assassination of an expert voice with THE definitive answer to THE politically explosive question wracking the body politic ,
the true circumstances of the victims death are mysteriously obscured in a welter of obvious lies and dodgy narrative which anyway go under-reported as its only government "licenced" media that are allowed to operate ,and those are anyway strictly curtailed as to what they can publish ,material witnesses to this government maleficence are either publicly blackened or meet with a road traffic accident , an inquiry is convened consisting only of those pensioned or those with expectations of future reward , and they , completely agree with whatever it is the government want them to agree with , only in a very opaque and imprecise way . which is immediately airbrushed from the political consciousness , only to be referred to as "the ****** ***** ***** affair" of course, obviously ,none of this could happen here . only in other peoples countries , none of that sinister dirty politics stuff here
Mr Brown Is Not A Very Good PM Is He
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
so many about turns from someone who is supposed to lead the country.
i am always pleased to demonstrate
[info]britfree wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:19 am (UTC)
the reality of the effectiveness of the zionist censorship machine , my posts are now barred from most threads on the indie , the ones dealing with zionisms baleful influence on the middle east anyway , this has been the result of pressure brought to bear by multiple handled hasbara bombarding the moderators with wild bluff filled threats quoting non existent european laws that they assert make the ventilation of zionisms publicly recorded crimes , some sort of hate crime . i have never attacked jews , or even used the name when i meant "zionist" , i do not resile from a single post i have made on this site . all of which were proudly from the anti racist, anti colonialist left . if anyone can produce one single britfree post that is anti "jewish" or promotes hatred of "jews" , i will eat my whole collection of various sized hats
YouTube if you want to, or was it U-turn?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:15 am (UTC)
So following on from the YouTube appearance where the grinning, gurning fool introduced his half-baked idea's for MPs expenses, and then the Gurkha U-turn, Gordon Brown is now making another reversal only days after introducing it.

Is it possible for a man who claims to listen to be any more inept? As his swan song continues, his authority slips through his fingers, his gravitas long deserted him and now he is becoming a figure of fun.

He moves in ever-decreasing circles as the time between each political stunt introduced as policy, and its subsequent withdrawal grows ever shorter, gives a new meaning to the phrase 'short-term'.
Re: YouTube if you want to, or was it U-turn?
[info]themartindale wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:20 am (UTC)
Going round in ever-decreasing circles usually results in disappearing up your own arse.
Carry on Gordon...
Back on topic
[info]colinscarr wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:24 am (UTC)
OK Mr Brown, you've opened the door a crack, but what does hearing "some" evidence mean in reality? Are we to hear the Ministry ofDefence tea lady publicly declare that everyone there was very busy in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, but be excluded from the inquiry when sensitive issues like whether or not Mr Hoone took sugar in his tea are raised?
Mr Balls
[info]indocrtination wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 05:24 am (UTC)
It would seems as if Mr Balls does not know how to honor his name...
Happy days
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:13 am (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She is my sweetheart.....She is the sunshine in my heart.....She is my best match.....I knew I would not love any other woman since I met her...Thanks for ************Cougar Circle . com*********** which brought us happiness. Wish you are as lucky as me......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NO, NO, NO--We are talking about mass murder.
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:25 am (UTC)
Brown is still making 2+2=3. This fraud, like his old flatmate and co-conspirator Bliar, is still trying to wipe bloodstains from the hands of the Machiavellis of Parliament.

The crime of pre-meditated war against an unarmed nation is heinous. Punishment, after a fair trial, should be meted out to those who perpetrated it.

The magnitude of the crime--hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent men, women and children, must not be wiped away by jackanapes.

If they consider Iraqi lives so little--how much do they consider ours?
pointless inquiry
[info]sidgreenstreet wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:05 am (UTC)
Just what is the point of an inquiry into the bleeding obvious. Another complete waste of money. After tens of millions spent the conclusion will be; no-one will be to blame, hindsight is a wonderful thing, we did it for the very best of reasons, Sadam was a monster, America is our special friend, Blair and Brown elevated to the Lords along with knighthoods for their supporters. The generals who have committed our troops to a war without sufficient kit should be shot along with the posturing MPs who would never put themselves in the same danger as they so glibly placed the troops. This inquiry is just another political dance for our masters.
DON'T WE KNOW THE TRUTH ALREADY?
[info]georgesign wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:27 am (UTC)
It is alledged that:-

Blair was told to go to war by Bush who was told to go to war by powerful financial interests who backed Bush.

The government put their fingers in their ears and sang La La La

Brown hid under the table.

Blair was rewarded with millions of Dollars and promised he would be the President of Europe.



Re: DON'T WE KNOW THE TRUTH ALREADY?
[info]britfree wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:48 pm (UTC)
nice call !
The Hidden Truth
[info]stickytruth2 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:41 am (UTC)
It appears to get the truth out of NU Labs including the rest of them in the HoC's.
Just think of how many of our troops who lost their lives and badly wounded, their numbers would out number those in the HoC's.
Nu Labs have a lot to answer for.
U-turn alright!
[info]mrnobodie wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:49 am (UTC)
not a u-turn!

more like a "comedy" turn sounds to me
RE;pointless inquiry
[info]gordon123 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:13 am (UTC)
Lets be quite clear here, the Generals did not commit the troops to the war in Iraq, the Government in the form of Tony Blair did, the Generals were duty bound to accept that decision. If you read Sir Mike Jackson's book Soldier you will understand his feeling about the whole affair.
How Time Flies
[info]reiksares wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC)
LAST WEEK: "Nae, nae, ah'll never an Inquiry into yon war, y'ken?"

THIS WEEK: "Och, we'll hae a sort of Inquiry, but naeboody wi' ever knae wha' was in it!"

TODAY: "Aye, alreet, ye can have some of yer Inquiry in public if ye want"

NEXT WEEK: "Och, if ye insist y'can hev alla the Inquiry in public, jings!"

NEXT MONTH: "Whaddya mean, ye dinnae want the Conclusions written before the Inquiry begins?"
Re: How Time Flies
[info]britfree wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC)
O k , thats how he speaks, is it ? the english are just a "wee bit" stupid , but you dont see us imitating gormlessness , we just wish we could get an uncorrupted vote long enough to get rid of you , fraudulent elections only happen in iran though, eh ?
Shows Brown's incompetence
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
This is just another example of Brown's utter incompetence. Rather than consult with opposition leaders, the security services and military chiefs to test opinion and come to some sort of consensus, he blundered on alone with his fixed ideas. First he dithers, then makes a judgment without consultation then finds he has to back peddle and looks a complete ass.

His choice of Inquiry members says it all. One chap said that Blair and Bush would be seen as the Churchill and Roosevelt of today and another used to write speeches for the ex PM. Establishment men one and all with an average age approaching sixty five.

Obviously the panel should contain an international Lawyer, a judge, an ex senior civil servant, at least one senior military person and an Intelligence expert. But the Brown never intended the Inquiry to find the truth, did he?
Re: Shows Brown's incompetence
[info]spos2020 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:48 pm (UTC)
Lets hope the pressure is kept on and the panel ends up including the spread of expertise it needs to do a proper job. The way the war was handled was wrong in many ways not just one.

We are not there yet.
free press , yeah right
[info]britfree wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:02 pm (UTC)
the government controlled media (er.....all of it, including the toxic independent ) will only tell you what the hidden powers, who control the political charade , require for their strategies to succeed . if they wish another nobbled inquiry to take place, its because they understand ,as the heirs of goebbels , that cosmetics are important to cover their syphilitic chancres ,
what will it take before the british sheep start to think about what little freedom of expression they actually have ? ,as opposed to their "its a free country" mantra ,that when tested against the facts , is exposed as the meaningless rubbish it surely is , in this political system based on the buggins turn party getting the green light from these hidden powers , the absolute lack of tolerance for plurality of opinion , less ,even than in Iran , where at least there are newspapers that disagree with each other , its obvious that the slave press in the british state have been set on the islamic republic en masse , its the last decent pleasure left, to be a dissident in this elected dictatorship with its servile press and its secret police
[info]dreadmorayeel wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:23 pm (UTC)
A total farce,albeit a tragic one.

To the Hague court for the lot of them.
Who really cares
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:05 pm (UTC)
It will be the same toothless spineless weasel words that come out. The government will not appoint anyone who will take any action against them. Look at the Hutton report, the evidence pointed to Blair being guilty but he made the judgement he was told, Tony Blair is a sterling chap, the BBC are the scumbags. Why do we bother in he first place, its just a waste of public funds.
Who really cares
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Sunday, 21 June 2009 at 01:37 am (UTC)
It will be the same toothless spineless weasel words that come out. The government will not appoint anyone who will take any action against them. Look at the Hutton report, the evidence pointed to Blair being guilty but he made the judgement he was told, Tony Blair is a sterling chap, the BBC are the scumbags. Why do we bother in he first place, its just a waste of public funds.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date