Inquiry delay questioned in the House of Lords

By andrewsimon - Last updated: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - Save & Share - 6 Comments

by Andrew Mason

The BBC has reported on concerns expressed yesterday in the House of Lords about the “considerable delay” in the publication of the conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry without making any reference whatsoever to a key element of the parliamentary oral question asked by Lord Dykes.

Iraq: Chilcot Inquiry

Question

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the chairman and secretariat of the Iraq Inquiry about possible delays in publication of its report due to responses from officials of the government of the United States.

Similarly, the response on behalf of the government made by the Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Strathclyde, made absolutely no mention of the suggestion that the US government might have made representations requesting the holding back of the Inquiry’s eventual findings.

In response to Lord Strathclyde’s reply to his question, Lord Dykes also (interestingly) stated:

It is a very long process and the sooner it is published the better, but there is still a considerable delay. The particular implications of eventual submissions to the ICC should also be borne in mind.

Posted in Coverage, Process • • Top Of Page

6 Responses to “Inquiry delay questioned in the House of Lords”

Comment from Bobm
Time November 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm

On any rational, humanitarian, analysis the Establishment’s continued slavish adherence to “Atlantic Bridge” thinking beggars belief.
Signs that the judiciary are now officially sceptical of this sort of thinking:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/31/yunus-rahmatullah-uk-supreme-court?INTCMP=SRCH

We have an “independent” nuclear deterrent that isn’t independent of the US; proposed “closed” proceedings, that take their very name from US court practice; it would be very good if Chilcot were to explore, or at least touch on, the rationale for all this.

Comment from Tony
Time November 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Blair touts for big business in Iraq. He would tout for the Shell and BP but they are already there. http://neoclassics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/tony-blair-touts-for-investment-in-iraq.html

Comment from chris lamb
Time November 13, 2012 at 9:10 pm

Despite Blair’s bullishness and continued insufferable boasting about the economic consequences of the (illegal) invasion, this UN report shows that it has been far from a miracle for the majority of the country although there may be big money for international interlopers in the oil sector;

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mG0UQ9sUQBwJ:www.iauiraq.org/reports/AD%2520EDITS%2520CCA_Inclusive_Growth%2520-%2520FINAL%2520VERSION%2520(06.09.09).docx

Hope the above works, I could only get access to it on a Google reader!

Comment from chris lamb
Time November 13, 2012 at 9:20 pm

Try this one- the extract is from a larger UN report (of 2009), more balanced in its assessment of the economic consequences of the invasion than Blair’s;

http://www.iauiraq.org/reports/CCA_Inclusive_Growth%20-%20FINAL%20VERSION%20_06.09.09_.pdf

Comment from John Bone
Time November 22, 2012 at 1:51 pm

In a week from now Lord Justice Leveson will publish his report on press standards. The report will come just over 16 months after the idea of an Inquiry was first mooted. In contrast, Lord Chilcot’s Inquiry started 3 years ago and there is no sign of the report appearing any time soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/22/leveson-press-standards-report

As Steve Richards says in today’s Independent, the point of inquiries is to kick a difficult subject into the long grass, but inevitably the time comes when the ball has to be picked up again and the grass isn’t long enough to hide it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/however-modest-they-may-be-lord-levesons-proposal-will-give-cameron-a-nightmarish-dilemma-8340642.html

The dilemma has to be faced. Certain newspapers regularly invaded people’s privacy and often broke the law. These newspapers are powerful actors in our political system and probably this kind of privacy-invasion is an integral part of their business model. These newspapers are going to do their best to avoid a more independent PCC, for example, that will have a better ability to take up complaints about invasion of privacy. These newspapers can put pressure on the politicians who will have to decide how to deal with Leveson’s report and recommendations; but at the same time the issues will be laid out in the report. It will be interesting to see what happens when the report is published, and it might provide some pointers for when (or if) Chilcot’s report is published.

Comment from Bobm
Time November 23, 2012 at 9:21 pm

“In a week from now Lord Justice Leveson will publish his report on press standards. The report will come just over 16 months after the idea of an Inquiry was first mooted. In contrast, Lord Chilcot’s Inquiry started 3 years ago and there is no sign of the report appearing any time soon.”

Firstly, I am not sure that Sir John Chilcot is a “Lord”.

Secondly, and more importantly, I apprehend that they[who would they be?] made a seriously good choice with Brian Leveson.

The guy is a Liverpudlian, of evidently independent disposition, despite his private education. He had the gall to say at the outset that he wasn’t about to have his findings buried like those of all the previous press studies. [A bit like choosing Alexander Dubcek to give the retrospective stamp of approval to the soviet occupation of eastern europe.] His hearings were arresting, and sometimes gripping.

God knows how far Chilcot may, ultimately, be influenced by Leveson; but Chilcot can be in no doubt, if he is listening, how far his approach will suffer, by comparison, if he doesn’t show some wider grip in the formulation of his conclusions.