Sir John Chilcot defied calls to set a timetable for his long-awaited £10 million Iraq Inquiry – sparking fury among grieving relatives of troops killed in the war.
Advertisement
The former worldwide Development Secretary accused Sir John’s inquiry of “New Labour-type spin” after it emerged that he report will cast blame for Britain’s role in the Iraq War far more widely than Tony Blair and his inner team.
He also claimed that letting those who were due to be criticised in the Chilcot report see details before publication – so-called Maxwellisation – was a “very bad idea”.
The chairman said he understood the “anguish” of those who lost loved ones in the conflict, but argued that the probe was “unprecedented” in its scope.
Chilcot mounted a lengthy defence of his embattled inquiry after weeks of criticism from the families as well as David Cameron and other politicians, as well as parts of the media.
“We need closure on this whole Iraq episode which we will not get until we get the findings from this inquiry”.
But Sir John, in his first statement since the controversy over the delay, contradicted Miss Short, saying Maxwellisation had not yet been completed.
Chilcot, in his statement, hit back at the government and Whitehall, who have joined in expressions of frustration at the delay in publishing the report.
He refused to set out a timetable for the publication of his report despite repeated quests from the families, who are now preparing to apply for a judicial review. “Some of those who have received drafts have expressed surprise, having regarded themselves as peripheral to the events leading up to the invasion”.
Lastly, as has been reported, we have received a letter from lawyers acting for a group of families.
I don’t intend to comment on the substance of that response and such letters are not normally published. The inquiry began about six years ago. We want this inquiry finished.
Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon, 19, was killed in a 2004 bombing, wondered whether Chilcot could really understand.
Chilcot said on today that the inquiry was on schedule and had met all its deadlines. Nonetheless, Sir John’s justification was immediately rejected by bereaved families, who have been threatening legal action to force him to publish by the end of the year.
Importantly, when witnesses agreed to give evidence to the inquiry, they did so on the basis of the inquiry’s witness protocol, which says that: “If the inquiry expects to criticise an individual in the final report, that individual will, in accordance with normal practice, be provided with relevant sections of the draft report in order to make any representations on the proposed criticism prior to publication of the final report”.
We intend to publish a large number of documents with our report.
Advertisement
The Maxwellisation process is essential not only to the fairness but also the accuracy and completeness of our report. It’s as big as War and Peace I understand.
