CHILCOT MUST RESIGN – OR BE SACKED!
THE MOMENT has come for Sir John Chilcot, the civil servant who was appointed six years ago to lead the official inquiry into the Iraq war, to do the decent thing and resign. And if he won’t quit of his own accord he should be fired.
When he took the helm in 2009 Sir John promised a quick, clinical investigation that would publish its findings within 18 months.
Instead there has been one delay after another. Sir John’s inquiry is now almost five years behind schedule, with no end in sight.
Yesterday, new revelations suggested it is now even more of a shambles than we had thought. Highly credible claims have emerged that the first draft of his inquiry was so incompetent and so riddled with errors that it has to be rewritten, just like a schoolboy essay.
The inquiry has also had to be secretly reopened, so it is reported, for evidence to be re-examined, with publication now delayed till next June at the earliest.
These claims have been made by the author Tom Bower, who has interviewed more than 150 officials, politicians and generals for his new book on the Tony Blair administration.
‘In the draft,’ writes Bower, ‘the inquiry criticised the military for decisions that were quite clearly the responsibility of politicians. The generals and admirals protested they properly had obeyed their legal orders. They complained further that the draft quoted hundreds of government documents that had not been shown to witnesses for their comments.
‘The panel members have correctly chosen to re-examine the evidence. In other words they are now undertaking a new inquiry.’
If there is any truth whatsoever in these very disturbing claims, then it is clear Sir John has lost control of his own investigation.
ANd that means that whatever finding he and his team eventually reach will be worthless. This is utterly shameful and totally unforgivable. The families of the 179 selfless British soldiers who died in Iraq are entitled to an explanation. It is now clear Sir John and his contemptible team are incapable of providing one.
It is highly unlikely that david Cameron – an Establishment figure who must take his fair share of the blame for allowing Chilcot to procrastinate and is therefore complicit in the whole debacle – will take such a drastic step as ordering Sir John to quit. That is why Parliament must intervene – it has ultimate sovereignty, including absolute powers over the executive arm of government. MPs have the ability to call an end to the Chilcot fiasco, and set up an investigation panel of their own with a mission to establish, however belatedly, the truth. They also have a moral duty to ensure that the truth be told.
Parliament’s panellists can be drawn from the Commons and the Lords, and would of course be privy counsellors, meaning they can be trusted with access to secret material.
The new panel must have statutory powers. It should include one independent-minded law lord (one of the worst failings of Chilcot’s team was the absence of a decent lawyer) as well as representatives of integrity from all main parties. The Lib dem Sir Menzies Campbell, a foreign affairs expert, comes to mind. For the Tories William (now Lord) Hague, a former foreign secretary who supported the invasion, might command support.
Many Labour figures were part of the original decision to go to war. But Lord Morris, a former Labour attorney general who recently criticised the Chilcot delays in this paper, has the integrity to inspire confidence. The new parliamentary investigation need not start all over again. Sir John and his team have already carried out many of the necessary interviews. Parliament can demand to see (it does not necessarily need to publish) all the material which Chilcot has seen and all the conclusions which he and his team have already drawn from it.
It could also demand sight of the so-called ‘Maxwellisation’ letters. These letters, where those criticised are given the chance of a right to reply before the report is published, have been the source of many of the delays. Parliament could then take charge of the Maxwellisation process, and set its own rules, as well as a reasonable timeframe – perhaps till the summer of next year – to reach thorough and reasonable conclusions.
Above all the new panel should avoid the two basic errors made by Sir John.
First, he allowed himself to be drawn into an endless game of Whitehall ping-pong over the right to quote especially sensitive documents. He weakly agreed with Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood that these would not be quoted directly but would be presented in what was termed ‘gists and quotes’ agreed with the relevant departments.
This left the timetable for the inquiry in the hands of Whitehall which argued endlessly over what could and could not be published. It caused at least three years delay.
This was totally unnecessary. Instead of endless negotiations over ‘gists and quotes’, Sir John should have told Sir Jeremy the inquiry’s first duty was to present an uncensored report to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister would then have considered – in consultation with the inquiry – how much should be edited before publication. If this had happened, we would have been able to read the report a long time ago, and in a candid version. No Prime Minister would have dared to sit on it for a long time, or censor it without very good reasons.
SECONd, Sir John has been far too soft on those subject to criticism – the so- called ‘ Maxwellees’, led by Tony Blair. These people have benefited from a right-of-reply invented more than 40 years ago for the inquiry into Robert Maxwell, one of the greatest villains in the long history of British public life.
With the help of lawyers paid by the taxpayer, they have been allowed to fight over every line, every word, the inquiry proposes to say about them.
Although they have all had years to prepare a truthful account of their role in the Iraq war, they have been allowed to rummage through the records for new material which shows them in a better light.
Sir John has refused to set any time limit on the Maxwellees and has given no guarantee the whole process will not be repeated if his inquiry revises its intended criticisms.
Many believe that sacking Sir John and his hopeless fellow panellists is a draconian step. But I am convinced it is a necessary one.
It is now six years since the last British soldier was withdrawn from Iraq, and 12 since the 2003 invasion. And it is now clear that the Iraq invasion was the worst foreign policy error since the 1938 Munich Agreement – in which Hitler was allowed to annex parts of Czechoslovakia – lit the touchpaper for the Second World War.
With the Middle East alight, and the world an ever more dangerous place, we urgently need to learn the lessons of Iraq.
And above all the families of 179 dead soldiers are crying out for an explanation. Sadly Chilcot no longer commands respect. He was entrusted with a great task of massive national importance. It has proved to be beyond him. He must go.