Retreat? Hutton and Butler 'back public Iraq inquiry'
Gordon Brown set to make U-turn over Iraq war inquiry and hold sections in public after attack by military and intelligence chiefs
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
Soldiers from 40 Regiment Highland Gunners in training at Shribah base 10 miles south of Basra
enlarge
Gordon Brown is considering a startling U-turn over the official inquiry into the Iraq war which could see witnesses give evidence in public rather than behind closed doors.
The Prime Minister, who announced on Monday that the investigation by privy councillors would be held in private, faces a rebellion by Labour MPs after military and intelligence officers condemned his decision, warning in this newspaper that it looked like a cover-up.
Backbenchers are threatening to inflict a humiliating Commons defeat on the Prime Minister next week.
And in a further blow to Mr Brown, two peers who chaired previous inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict, Lord Hutton and Lord Butler of Brockwell, support the bulk of the evidence to be heard in public, The Independent has learnt.
Their views undermine the Government's claim that the best way to learn lessons would be for the inquiry to be held in private.
Last night, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, said the Government had not consulted him. "I was not privy to the discussions," he said. "I am sure the option of part in public and part in private was considered and I think that that is an option that has got a lot of merit to it."
And Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and a close Brown ally, broke ranks yesterday by hinting that he wants at least part of the proceedings to be held in public. "If you're asking my personal view, I'd prefer it to be as open a process as possible," he told ITV.
The British general with the most extensive involvement in the Iraq campaign said the inquiry should be held in public. Major General Tim Cross, who was intimately involved in the planning and military operation, and appointed deputy to the US General Jay Garner to head the authority running Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, told The Independent: "This inquiry should be in public as much as possible, and then, if necessary, go into private sessions to hear sensitive intelligence-related testimonies. I can see no reason at all why I cannot give my evidence in public if I am called before the inquiry.
"It is vitally important that there is a thorough review of what took place, both pre and post war.
"This would be of enormous benefit not only to the military, but other government departments as well... [and] in planning current and future operations in Afghanistan and military missions in which we may become involved." In private evidence given to the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Lord Hutton and Lord Butler agreed that secret inquiry hearings into Iraq could not be justified given the interest in the war.
They were supported by former diplomats who were questioned by the Labour-controlled committee, which is preparing to add its voice to demands for public hearings in a report it will publish on Saturday.
The committee chairman, Tony Wright, said only: "This has to be a public inquiry. Everybody accepts there are parts that need to be taken in secret, but there should be a presumption that much of it should be in public. Only if the inquiry is conducted in a manner which is legitimate and credible – and is seen to be so – will the public be assured that it is not a whitewash."
Labour whips warn that a rebellion is possible on Wednesday when the Tories will propose that the investigation be held largely in public, with only classified evidence heard behind closed doors. Some MPs predict a repeat of the embarrassing defeat on the residence rights of retired Gurkhas.
Mr Brown is expected to discuss with the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, whether some sessions could be open to the public. The Prime Minister's allies insist that he is not wedded as a matter of doctrine to all evidence being taken in private. They say he was advised by senior Whitehall figures that this would be the most effective way to learn lessons. Mr Brown fears a mainly public event would be a "lawyers' paradise" that could drag on for years.
He now has an agonising dilemma. If he stands firm, he could face a Commons defeat forcing a U-turn. If he backs down, disclosures could embarrass the Government in the run-up to the general election.
Senior Labour sources forecast a retreat before next week's debate. One said: "There has been a complete failure to understand the politics of this."
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
and rightly so. if only they'y has some ball's in 2002/2003 and refused to go to war until inspections had been completed...the only hope is that some real, hard, credible evidence or sources come to light (very doubtable-i bet the restrictions placed on the enquiry are as harsh as usual, and these calls for public hearing will be a sham anyway, but that's just me) that can help indict or charge blair, brown and co with intentioally misleading the public to go to war on a false pretence, then face chages in the hague.hanging is too good for bliar though.peace to all
Trouble is, 'sexed up' intelligence, faked intelligence if you like, is at the heart of the justification that Bliar et al used for invading Iraq. The intelligence evidence needs to be given in public if the inquiry is to have any credibility at all.
The public will be shocked to learn what they already know, institutional figures will be paid tens of thousands each for their inconvenience, millions will be spent on investigations and fees and mountains of files will be created. The lessons learned will be we shouldn't do it again, a few minor officials will be rebuked and those most at fault will be stared at and tut tutted.
Nobody will go to jail, nobody will be shot and Cameron will just push it aside before forgetting it ever happened.
This is not correct. The Lib Dems were against this war from day one and tried to kick up a fuss about it. Much of the country and most of the media dismissed them for it saying the normal things about the Lib Dems, wishy washy, soft, deluded, liberals.
Gradually more and more people realised what was going on and stood up against it but the Lib Dems were against it from the beginning.
I have expressed my utter contempt for this fool of a PM many times. His latest stunt was to suggest that the enquiry into the Iraq "war" should be held in secret. I was utterly disgusted. Clearly my feelings are shared by vast numbers, & clearly that outrage has reached Brown's ears, as the latest we now hear is that Clown has changed his mind. (Whatever "changed his mind" means when applied to Clownspeak) Perhaps I might have felt heartened that such expressions of outrage had impelled Clown to change his tack, & yet, now that he has - or has so claimed, for I wouldn't trust this booby as far as I could throw him - I am even MORE outraged! ha! ha! ha! I am further outraged because further shifting of his ground simply demonstrates - yet again - how at sea he & his gang really are. This man is no leader, he is an empty paper bag, blown hither & thither by every & any wind or breeze that blows.
Like his grinning, gurning, smiling, rocking YouTube performance where he announced his plans for reform of the MPs Expenses system, he has once again mis-read the political mood, failed to consult his own political party, let alone the leaders of the other parties, and announced a major policy initiative.
This one will meet the same fate, ie it will be pulled apart by a wide range of critics and then abruptly withdrawn. As a result, any real progress on the underlying issue will be delayed, the image of the government further damaged in the eyes of the public, and the authority of the Prime Minister further undermined.
After the recent political machinations that nearly lead to the Labour Party removing him from office, Gordon Brown made a speech to Labour MPs claiming that he would mend his ways and learn to listen, a now overly familiar refrain that falls on deaf ears.
It is clear from the both the broad spectrum of the criticism of the idea of a public inquiry, and the blunt language employed by his critics, that Gordon brown failed to consult, let alone listen, to so many key groups who will figure prominently in the Iraq War inquiry. Many were senior figures in his own party.
He will now the proposal for a secret inquiry as he would face an embarrassing defeat in the Commons including many rebels of his own party who would vote against him. His popularity will fall further, his authority will be further diminished, his reputation for competence will shrink even more and his swan song will continue.
Brown and others are trying to create a partly pregnant creature, which can never give birth.
Maybe British people should call for a trial to bring Bliar, Straw, Hoon, Ex-Attorney General Goldsmith, Scarlett and the other "intelligence" fabricators to account.
All Britons have paid their billions in taxes unwillingly, to support that dirty war and are entitled to justice and clear consciences. Redemption, can be brought, only by putting the vainglorious perpetrators on trial to indicate the magnitude of the crime they so lightly embarked upon.
Of course this will not happen the British people have lost the dignity to fight for their rights.
If only he could just spend a few moments consulting before deciding them I suspect a lot of the UK's problems might not be quite as bad as them are. Still, it is his nature, his character and despite telling Labour MPs the other week that he will change (as he has told them before) - he cannot. He has a flawed character making him unsuited to leadership. That is how he is - only real solution is to move his to a role he is better suited to.
And given we now realise that the redacted parts of the full disclosure of MP's expenses would have kept us in the dark on security (of MP) grounds, we must be ever more vigilant.
I do have another anxiety. There is a tendency to lose independent people who give the wrong answer (Richard Thomas' predecessor), or to ignore them (the current Parliamentary Ombudsman over Equitable Life, repeatedly).
So part of having the evidence in public is to keep an eye on our guardians, i.e. the enquiry panellist themselves.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art
In other times he would have had to face something else than such a terrible dilemma.