Five reasons

Iraq war inquiry: Five reasons why a full Gordon Brown U-turn looks inevitable

Amid pressure from both the Commons and the Lords for a public inquiry, the PM appears increasingly likely to reverse his decision for it to be held in private

Posted by Andrew Sparrow
Friday 19 June 2009 13.09 BST
guardian.co.uk

Alastair Campbell says the Iraq inquiry should be held in private, but it looks as though he's losing the argument.

Gordon Brown has already performed a partial U-turn, suggesting yesterday that he would be happy for the inquiry to hold some meetings in public – but you only have to take a quick look at the politics of the situation to work out that something has got to budge.

For anyone who was preoccupied with MPs' expenses yesterday, here are five reasons why I think Brown is going to have to make further compromises.

1. The Commons wants a public inquiry

This hasn't had much publicity, but yesterday the (Labour-dominated) Commons public administration committee published a strong report criticising the format proposed by Brown. This was its key finding:

While we welcome the government's announcement that an inquiry into Iraq will be held, that it will have a broad scope, and that it will aim to learn lessons from the decision to go to war, the conflict and its aftermath, there is a strong risk that the inquiry as currently constituted will not be able to pursue what should be its fundamental purpose: to identify the truth and ensure that the executive can be held properly accountable for its decisions and conduct in relation to Iraq.

Tony Wright, the committee's chairman (and the man Brown has just asked to recommend ways of making the Commons operate more effectively), said this:

It is also crucial that the inquiry be conducted openly and in public, and that Parliament has a role in establishing it. Only an open, legitimate and credible process of this kind will satisfy a sceptical public that this inquiry is not a whitewash.

2. The Lords wants a public inquiry

We've covered yesterday's Lords debate on Iraq, but it is worth reading the speeches in full because they show that there is very strong support in the Lords for a full public inquiry.

Here's Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who chaired the inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war:

I do not find the national security arguments in favour of an inquiry in private convincing.

The review that I chaired published verbatim the government's intelligence assessments on which the decision to go to war was based. If there is confidential material – for example, about discussions with allies – or if there are witnesses who are prepared to speak openly only in private, it would be possible for the inquiry to hold in camera sessions for that purpose.

Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that an open inquiry would be a field day for lawyers. Not every inquiry has to be like the Saville inquiry [into Bloody Sunday] and, if witnesses need protection from the inquiry, they need protection whether it is in public or in private.

So I reluctantly conclude that the form of the inquiry proposed by the government has been dictated more by their political interest than by the national interest,
and that it cannot achieve the purpose of purging mistrust which so many people
hope for from it.

And here's the former law lord Lord Steyn:

I fear that the arrangements for an inquiry into the Iraq war and its terms of reference are patently unacceptable.

The absence of powers of subpoena is a grave flaw. The imposition of total secrecy by the prime minister is inappropriate.

The explanation that it will ensure, for example, that the evidence of serving and former ministers will be as "full and candid as possible" lets the cat out of the bag.

The condition that the committee "will not set out to apportion blame" is truly absurd. It means that if the committee considers that the previous prime minister and the cabinet were to blame, it is not entitled to find accordingly.

3. The military seem to be in favour of a public inquiry

The former head of the army General Sir Mike Jackson said yesterday that the inquiry hearings should be held in public "wherever possible" if Brown wants it to reassure the public.

4. Brown has started to shift already

The prime minister made an initial compromise yesterday. Commenting on it in the Lords debate, the Foreign Office minister, Lord Malloch-Brown said:

It is not correct that we have moved to a public inquiry but, in our anxiety that this inquiry enjoy public support, we wish to give those leading it as much discretion as possible.

5. If Brown doesn't move further, he will probably be defeated in the Commons

The Tories have tabled a motion for debate in the Commons on Wednesday. It says:

That this House, while welcoming the announcement by the government of an inquiry into the war in Iraq, believes that the proceedings of the committee of inquiry should whenever possible be held in public; and that the membership of the committee should be wider and more diverse than the government has proposed, and calls on the government to revise its proposals for the inquiry to meet these and other objections raised by hon members and to submit proposed terms of reference for it to the House on a substantive motion for full debate and scrutiny.

This is almost exactly what the public administration committee is calling for. The Lib Dems will vote with the Tories, and they seem to have the support of large numbers of Labour MPs.

The government recently lost a vote over the Gurkhas on an opposition day debate and, unless Brown offers further concessions, this seems likely to happen again.

Tony Wright, the Labour public administration committee chair, said today:

My sense is that there will be further developments in the government's position. I would be very surprised if that were not the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/19/gordon-brown-iraq-war-inquiry