Government rejects pleas for stronger checks to prevent repeat of Blair's rush to war in Iraq

MPs had warned it was still 'too easy for a prime minister to disregard cabinet procedures'

Tony Blair was found to have disregarded cabinet procedures in the run up to the Iraq War (Getty)

The Government has rejected MPs’ pleas for stronger checks to prevent future prime ministers from replicating Tony Blair’s rush into the Iraq War.

Calls were made for greater safeguards on decisions of national importance after the Chilcot report into the 2003 invasion found the former Prime Minister had excluded senior colleagues from crucial judgements and bypassed officials when he told US President George Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.”

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) said it was “disappointed” that the Government had rebuffed key demands for greater scrutiny, after the MPs found that it was still “too easy for a prime minister to disregard cabinet procedures”.

PACAC said: “The committee is disappointed with the Government’s response given the clear evidence of the need for improvements to public inquiries and government decision-making that the committee received.

“It is particularly concerned about the Government’s failure to accept the case for stronger safeguards to ensure proper collective consideration by the Cabinet on decisions of national importance.”

A critical Commons report into lessons learnt from the Chilcot investigation originally warned that the Iraq War left an “indelible scar on British politics” and said that for many, “the Chilcot inquiry fails to provide closure on the Iraq issue”.

It also urged MPs to reflect on how Parliament “could have been more critical and challenging of the government at the time” and noted the “seriousness” of the case made by Dr Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge University politics lecturer, that Mr Blair “deliberately misled” the Commons.

The report said the cabinet secretary – the head of the civil service – should be able to formally object to a decision if it has not been taken following the correct route, and ask a prime minister to write a formal letter if they wanted to dodge proper procedure.

Such a letter could then be shown to other cabinet ministers or privy councillors, which would deter leaders from acting inappropriately.

However, the Government insisted there was “not an absence of safeguards” and any extra checks risked bringing in “a degree of unnecessary antagonism between officials and the prime minister”.

It also rejected MPs calls for greater parliamentary oversight on the timetable and budget of public inquiries, after the Chilcot probe ran for nearly seven years, rather than the expected two years.

The Government said the current approach provided the “appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility”, as inquiries often needed to be set up quickly to deal with issues of urgent public concern.

Changes introduced since the Iraq War, such as the creation of the National Security Council, had helped deal with situations like “group think”, the Government said.

The Government said: “It is inconceivable today that we could take a premeditated decision to commit combat troops without a full and challenging discussion in the National Security Council, on the basis of full papers, including written legal advice, prepared and stress-tested by all relevant departments, with decisions formally minuted.”

It also said lessons had been learnt from Iraq investigation, such as a wide use of the “Chilcot checklist” across Whitehall, which encourages civil servants to look at decision-making with reference to the failures highlighted by the inquiry.