Chilcot Inquiry delay: David Cameron blames Labour for not establishing Iraq War probe sooner

Cameron defends controversial delay of report at PMQs, saying 'I don't believe anyone is trying to block or put off this report'

David Cameron today blamed Labour for the controversial decision to delay publication of the six-year Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq War until after the May general election.

As MPs expressed anger over the latest delay, the Prime Minister pointed the finger of blame at the Labour Government headed by Gordon Brown. Mr Cameron told the inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot: “Had the previous Government established this inquiry when I first called for it, we would not be in this position today. But that cannot now be undone.”

At Prime Minister's Questions, Hackney MP Dianne Abbott and others questioned the time Sir John had taken to deliver his report, calling it a “scandal” that was threatening public confidence in the inquiry system.

Mr Cameron said that it was not up to him to decide the timing of an independent report, but added: “My feeling is there is no mystery as to why it is taking so long, it is a very thorough report and you have to follow the proper processes.

“I don't believe anyone is trying to dodge this report or put off this report.”

The debate in the Commons came after Sir John confirmed that his investigation would not be completed before the election.

The former top civil servant insisted that “very substantial progress” had been made and that his committee wanted to publish its findings as soon as possible.

But Sir John said it could not be completed until people criticised in his draft report had been given the chance to reply, which would still take “some further months,” so there was “no realistic prospect” of delivering the report before the election.

Tony Blair is widely expected to be among those criticised, but has denied being responsible for the delay.

Sir John declined to give a firm timetable for publication. “Until we have received and evaluated responses from all those who have been given the opportunity to respond, I cannot give an accurate estimate for how long it will then take to complete our work,” he said. He confirmed that his long-awaited report would include 29 of Mr Blair’s notes to US President George Bush with “a very small number essential redactions”. But the President’s replies are unlikely to be published.

Mr Cameron told Sir John he had hoped the report would be published “well before the forthcoming election”. He hoped it would now be published soon afterwards, but said he respected Sir John’s decision. “It is important that the inquiry remains fully independent of government,” he added.

Earlier, MPs condemned the delay amid claims that the inquiry had been slow to send out sections of the draft report to those criticised. Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, said there was a suspicion at Westminster that such sections were completed last summer but not sent out until December.

Tony Blair meets troops during a visit to Basra in 2004 (Getty Images)

Sir John is expected to be summoned by MPs to explain the delay, a move Mr Cameron supported at PMQs. Bernard Jenkin, Tory chairman of the Public Administration Committee, said: “Yes, we could [call him], but this is all highly political... If it was a judicial inquiry, nobody would ever hear of a judge being brought in front of a committee to explain the conduct of an inquiry. I think we are entitled to an explanation. This is certainly disappointing."

While some Labour figures will be relieved, the Liberal Democrats are furious because they were the only one of the three main parties to oppose the Iraq War.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said today: “I'm sure Labour and Conservative MPs who voted for the illegal Iraq war will be very relieved that this is going to be kicked off into a time after the coming general election.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, told Sir John in a letter: “If the findings are not published with a sense of immediacy, there is a real danger the public will assume the report is being ‘sexed down’ by individuals rebutting criticisms put to them by the inquiry, whether that is the case or not.”