On 11 June, the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) in the Commons held a seminar, drawing on former diplomats, those who had chaired inquiries, and MPs and peers, in order to discuss how an inquiry into the Iraq war could and should be conducted. I was one of the participants. It was an extremely productive gathering.
The Prime Minister’s statement on 15 June that an inquiry will be held would have benefited from drawing on the findings of the seminar. In the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement, PASC puiblished a report on Thursday, making the case – I think rightly – for most of the inquiry to be held in public, for it to be approved by the House of Commons (rather than being a top-down inquiry determined by ministers), for it to include members with political experience, and for it to be divided into two parts: looking at the decision to go to war, and the broader lessons to be drawn from the conflict and its aftermath.
The report was published on the day that the House of Lords debated the consequences of the Iraq war. Initiated by Lord Fowler, the debate included a notable contribution from Lord Butler (who chaired the inquiry into intelligence on the Iraq war) making the case for the inquiry to be public. The debate can be read here.
Dear Lord Norton
First of all may I say that I enjoy your prolific ‘blogging’ on this site and have read and enjoyed your book, The British Polity, though it was a pretty old edition (I believe it was put out right before they got rid of Thatcher).
As for the inquiry, I should think that any matters which are unlikely to jeopardize national security ought to be out in the open so that the voters can make up their own minds about the rightness or otherwise of going to war. As ‘open parliament’ seems to be fashionable at the moment – excluding perhaps the secrecy of today’s speaker ballot – it would be most appropriate for this to be the manner in which the inquiry is conducted.
where is Baroness D’Souza to tell us all about the excitement she is involved with today ! ?
Kyle Mulholland: Many thanks. It sounds as if you read the third or fourth edition of ‘The British Polity’. You may be pleased to know that I am just putting the finishing touches to a new edition, which all being well should be published by the end of the year. On the inquiry, I agree completely and I’m pleased to say that the pressure for that approach appears to be winning the day.
Bedd Gelert: I have just been with Baroness d’Souza! We were in the Bishops’ Bar watching the results of the Speakership election in the Commons.
(thinks) Must bite tongue on speaker’s election.
I don’t see how this enquiry can engender any more confidence than the last when the terms of reference and membership are set by the PM who obviously has a vested interested. The sooner we move to a situation where the PM has no power in this matter the better. Personally I favour MPs voting for an enquiry and the Lords setting the terms of reference and confirming members which have been proposed by an outside body.
Croft: One thing that struck me when the inquiry was announced was the absence of any clear terms of reference. It appears the chairman in conjunction with the other committee members will determine the terms. On inquiries, I agree with the point you are making. The Public Administration Committee in the Commons has recommended enabling Parliament to establish Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, comprising privy counsellors, especially for the purpose of inquiring into executive conduct. The Government should not be left to set up inquiries into its own conduct. I have drawn attention in the House to the PASC recommendations and very much support them.
In my community (Lincoln) I was heavily involved in the Stop the War movement, addressing throngs in the local city centre and organising busses to London for the great protest march (I believe, the largest march in British history).
Among the local activists was Dr Colin Leakey, a distinguished agro-biologist (+ I believe a one time Lib Dem candidate for somewhere down south) who had experience in Iraq. Dr Leakey produced a paper refuting much of the biological weapons evidence, which we featured on our local website and which can still be seen here:
http://www.lincolnstwc.2far.co.uk/page1.htm
I know it was communicated to Government at the time. I would suggest Dr Leakey would be a valuable witness for an inquiry if he can be found, but am unsure to whom to go to suggest such a move.
stephenpaterson: Once the inquiry is up and running, I presume it will have its own website. That will contain guidance in respect of evidence. A secretariat will be appointed and there will be a secretary to whom evidence can be submitted. You could also contact the secretary to suggest Dr Leakey as a possible witness.
Thanks, Lord N. I think I’ve found Colin’s website with his email address so I’ll approach him on the subject.
Yesof course I am still around! In fact the Chilcot Inquiry has a whole dossier of things I have written and collected ansd this has been acknoledged to me by Harriet Harman, My MP Gillian Merron has also been co-operative. The final view I tke is of a direct contradiction beteeen the requirments of NATO protocols in relation to Pre-emptive strikes and that of the United Nations. I hope this enquiryt may point that up and a reolution be demanded. Colin Leakey |C