Secret inquiry into Iraq war will report after the election
Campaigners and MPs express anger that the long-delayed inquiry into the conflict will not even apportion blame, reports Andrew Grice
GETTY IMAGES
Prime Minister Tony Blair meets with British soldiers on duty in Basra on 17 December 2006
Gordon Brown sparked anger from MPs in all parties and relatives of the 179 British servicemen killed in Iraq by announcing that an inquiry into the war would be held in private.
The Prime Minister was accused of a "fix" after revealing yesterday that the independent inquiry would not report until July next year – safely after the next general election, which must be held by June 2010.
There was also criticism that the inquiry team, chaired by former Whitehall mandarin Sir John Chilcot, was composed of the "great and the good" and was unlikely to rock the boat.
Critics also expressed concern that the year-long investigation would not "apportion blame" and feared that the team is thought unlikely to able to question the American architects of the controversial 2003 invasion such as Dick Cheney, the then vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the then defence secretary. Tony Blair is expected to agree to be quizzed. Doubts were raised about whether the legality of the military action by British troops would be covered. Mr Brown said the inquiry would not consider issues of civil or criminal liability. But Downing Street insisted that the legal grounds could be investigated.
Brown allies pointed out that Tony Blair had always resisted a full-scale inquiry, saying Mr Brown overcame opposition in Whitehall to the move. They said it was best to hold it in private to prevent it becoming a "lawyers' paradise" dragging on for years, like the eight-year investigation into the Bloody Sunday killings.
Mr Brown's support for an inquiry was revealed by The Independent in March 2008. But MPs suspect he stalled the start until next month so it would not report before the election. He argued that it should not begin until most British troops returned home. There are now fewer than 500 in Iraq.
The long-awaited announcement was intended to win the Prime Minister plaudits from Labour MPs, many of whom opposed the war. Instead, Labour critics accused him of breaking a pledge to be more "open" when he saw off a plot to oust him a week ago.
Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice said: "I had hoped for a new politics of openness after last week. I am not prepared to accept a secret inquiry into Iraq and I want the Prime Minister to think again." David Hamilton, another Labour MP, said the "day of reckoning" could only come about through a public inquiry.
Labour's Andrew MacKinlay said the Prime Minister had not answered the "key question" of whether people would give evidence on oath. Nothing short of that would give the inquiry "veracity and integrity", he said.
David Cameron, the Tory leader, said the move belied Mr Brown's promise of a "new era of democratic renewal". He added: "The inquiry needs to be, and needs to be seen to be, truly independent and not an establishment stitch-up." The Tories reserved the right to change the terms of reference if they win the election. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader said: "A secret inquiry conducted by a clutch of grandees hand-picked by the Prime Minister is not what Britain needs. The Government must not be allowed to close the book on this war as it opened it – in secrecy."
The Prime Minister told the Commons that closed hearings would ensure evidence given to the inquiry by politicians, military officers, and officials would be as "full and as candid as possible". A public inquiry would mean "lawyers, lawyers and lawyers", he said.
The aim would be to "learn lessons" and the inquiry would cover an eight-year period from 2001 the conduct of the military campaign and the aftermath to the present day.
Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon was killed in Iraq in 2004, said: "We have fought and fought for this but it will be no use and it could all be for nothing behind closed doors... the families who lost loved ones just want a simple answer to a simple question: why did we go in to Iraq?"
Sunder Katwala, general secretary of the Fabian Society which won the inquiry pledge last year, welcomed the move but added: "The Government has now fumbled the public politics of the inquiry twice – getting caught in process arguments first about the timing of an announcement, and now about the nature [of] it. Perhaps some criticism was inevitable, but a broader approach would also have had broader support, and that is a chance that has been missed."
Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, which questioned the war's legality, said: "Without either openness or independence there can be no confidence in the inquiry and I am sure that the families of soldiers killed... will wish to challenge today's announcement."
Inquiry team: Seekers of truth?
*Sir John Chilcot (chairman)
Aged 70. Regarded in Whitehall as the ultimate securocrat. Served on Butler Inquiry into intelligence about Iraq's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. Chaired government review on use of intercept evidence in terrorist cases. Civil servant who rose to Permanent Under Secretary at Northern Ireland Office before retiring in 1997. Conducted reviews of royal and VIP security in 1999, and the Castlereagh Special Branch break-in 2002-3.
*Sir Lawrence Freedman
Aged 60. Professor of War Studies at King's College, London, since 1982. Seen by critics of the Iraq war as one of its architects. In 1999, Downing Street asked his views on "humanitarian intervention" – use of military action for liberal reasons. He was astonished when Tony Blair based a landmark speech in Chicago on his memo to No 10.
*Sir Martin Gilbert
Aged 72. Historian. Official biographer of Winston Churchill. Gordon Brown likes handing signed copies of his tome to visiting American politicians. In 2004, Gilbert argued that US President George Bush and Tony Blair might one day be seen as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill: "Many comment that today's leaders look small compared with the giants of the past. This is, I believe, a misconception."
*Baroness Usha Prashar
Aged 60. Kenyan-born crossbench peer. Was First Civil Service Commissioner, then chairman of Judicial Appointments Commission. Former director of the Runnymede Trust and chairman of Parole Board. Currently on the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and governor of the Ditchley Foundation on foreign affairs.
*Sir Roderic Lyne
Aged 61. Eton-educated, served as British diplomat from 1970 to 2004, including a spell as assistant private secretary to Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington from 1979-82. Private secretary for foreign affairs to Prime Minister John Major 1993-6. Was later British ambassador to Russia 2000-4 and now Russia expert at Chatham House think-tank.
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
Forget this inquiry, it will report only AFTER the results of the next General Election are in for starters, and who is going to believe it's conclusions anyway ?
He has definitely shot himself, yet again, in the foot. (his feet must be riddled with holes by now)
We don't want candid evidence, we want skilled prosecutors twisting the words of witnesses to give daily sensational revelations in the press.
We dont want facts, we want ammunition to support the conclusions we have already made our minds up about. (You don't beliver me: just watch this comment space as it fills up.)
Above all we want -nay, we demand - catharsis and someone to blame. (And we don't much care who - left, right, liberal, tory, labor - just give us someone to blame.)
Poor Gordon, you just don't understand modern politics, do you?
The last thing in the world we want is a sober inquiry that learns from the past to teach lessons for the future. That would require some heavy, forward-looking thinking. Too hard, Mr Brown, too hard by a long chalk.
But when you speak of "a sober inquiry that learns from the past to teach lessons for the future", do you seriously think that what we're now promised is remotely likely to deliver that?
I'd hoped for a fully public enquiry with powers to summon witnesses and require formal testimony under oath, but doubted that even that would ensure adequate transparency and accountability. After Hutton and Butler, it's farcical to think that this toothless, yet doubtless still expensive, charade could even begin to achieve what you hope for. Even before it meets, have you any real doubt that you, I or any poster on this thread could write a more or less accurate and factual summary of what will be this enquiry's conclusions?
had_it, is doing what so many do when making comments, which is to speak for everyone else : I do want facts, I have not already made my mind up, I don't give a damn about the political alignment of who ever started this war, I do want some one held to account, after all, the war did not start itself did it ?
Finally had_it, speak for yourself, when I want a spokes man I will ask for one, and it won't be you, do you require a spokesman john_b_ellis ?
Two: Why would a public enquiry involve prosecutors? You seem confused. You are buying into a simplistic cartoon view of the law and legal experts in exactly the same way you are accusing reasonable commentators of buying into some kind of moral panic.
Three: Catharsis and blame. Why not? Do you not think it is reasonable for the public to feel anger at having been lied to? Do you not think it is reasonable to ask why the public were lied to, and an illegal war carried out on spurious grounds of our protection from fictitious weapons, magicked into existence by a f*****g press advisor? Carried out against the advice of the government's chief (and sympathetic) legal advisor. Do you seriously believe that nobody is to blame for this- that the war just conducted itself? That soldiers and Iraqi civilians chose to die because it filled some kind of inevitable fate? That the 3000lb bombs dropped themselves. Yes, I'd like to know exactly who is to blame, and so would families of many dead people.
Yours is a lame defence of a lame defence.
Then, without any legal footing and without witnesses swearing any oaths, Brown believes people giving evidence will be truthful - despite the fact that some have certainly lied to the public on such matters before. People who have already lied and should they tell the truth to the inquiry will in effect admit they did wrong, yet Brown has assumed they will suddenly decide to tell the truth. Is he really that naive.
But then does that really matter because, it is all held in secret so nobody will ever know anyway. It has been constrained in that it cannot identify any blame (so no finding who was responsible for the lies and failures) and it is being carried out by a small group who have previously declared their admiration for Blain and Labour.
Just what is the point of wasting public money on this. Either have a proper open inquiry or do nothing but don't waste our taxpayers money on this whitewash (particularly when public finances are is such a disastrous state already).
I call on every person in Britain to fight these corrupt damned liars.
We can not, must not and will not accept this cover-up.
The hearing should be now and should be PUBLIC.
Anything else is a criminal perversion and a travesty.
Through his decision to hold this enquiry behind "closed doors" speaks volumes that the attack upon Iraq was as everyone knows illegal. I was opposed to the attack and like countless thousands expressed my opinion, this was ignored completley as we are now over the inquiry.
As regards the panel selection I am suprised that George W Bush and Dick Cheyney have not been invited to help and cover up the lies of the whole mess.
On this subject I was viewing CARRIER on the Discovey channel last week and one minor incident took my eye, this was a scene where the crew were taking aboard bombs not used to murder the Iraqis. Some of the weapons (of mass destruction) carried messages to Saddam Hussein speaking of revenge for his attack on 9/11. Brainwashed or what?????
Then he made it plain that the Inquiry was not there to apportion blame. Why not? If there were errors made by politicians, diplomats, security service personnel, military officers or civil servants then the public has the right to know, especially those who have lost loved ones in the conflict. And how else can we learn by our mistakes? Asked why he did not discuss the matter with the Opposition leaders, Brown intimated that the Cabinet Secretary had spoken to them, presumably after he and his cronies had stitched up the matter. So much for trying to find a consensus. The man would not know meaning of cross party consensus.
But the composition of the board says it all. Five establishment people with an average age close to sixty five, all with titles. Still what do we expect from a PM who has more unelected members of his cabinet than any leader since the war.
I guess we are to be treated to another Hutton Inquiry.
According to Glorious Gordo this format of inquiry will allow participants to be " as candid as possible" What the public want is that they should be truthful. Glorious Gordo has just set up a GENTLEMAN'S CLUB where everybody will be expected to be as CANDID AS POSSIBLE, but their evidence will not be under oath.
The composition of the committee leaves a great deal to be desired. It is composed of a wealk set of ex Civil Servants who will produce another whitewash report. This inquiry is a complete waste of taxpayer's money and Glorious Gordo knows it.
Did he consult with Opposition members on the extent of the inquiry, on the composition of the committee or whether it should be open to the public. NO NO NO
GLORIOUS GORDO DOES IT HIS WAY
Whitewash. Waste of time. Take to the streets.
Bliar, Brown, Hoon, Straw, Goldsmith, Miliband, Mandelson . . . and those accomplices, who walked through the pro-war lobby to pulverise Iraq and the people of Iraq, after a minimum of debate, for so bloody and great an issue.
Brown now, compounds the crime by having the investigation in private.
Most of us, who followed the humiliating twists and turns of such contrived intrigues and lies, which led to the war against Iraq, would have liked to see what Justice looked like--but we are to be subjected to even more of the same from these audacious frauds.
Scum has never been more toxic, than when it destroys the integrity of a nation.
You deserve a prison sentence for high treason.