Downing Street Says

The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) began by saying that the letter being given out was sent by the Prime Minister to Sir John Chilcot and gave more specificity on the Iraq Inquiry. We had consistently said that our objective for this inquiry was to get to the truth so that we could learn the lessons. In the letter, the Prime Minister emphasised the importance of all those appearing before the inquiry to do so with the greatest possible candour and openness. The Prime Minister had also written to all relevant former and current Ministers to ask them to cooperate fully with the inquiry.

The Prime Minister had also made clear in the letter that the inquiry itself should proceed as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process and without in any way damaging national security.

This was clearly a complex inquiry and there was a mass of evidence that would need to be examined fully in order to get to the truth. On the precise format of the inquiry, the Prime Minister had asked Sir John Chilcot to meet the leaders of the other political parties and the Chairs of the relevant Parliamentary Select Committees. He would then set out in more detail how he and his colleagues thought the objectives that the Government had set for the inquiry could best be met in the way that the inquiry was conducted.

Asked if it was up to Sir John Chilcot to decide whether hearings were public or not, the PMS said that the issue for us was always about getting to the truth so that lessons were learnt. The question of whether some of this might be in public or not was never any great issue of theology for us; the issue was how best to conduct an effective inquiry that got to the truth. The Prime Minister was clear that in this case it should not mean a protracted, Saville-type inquiry that went on for years, involving countless lawyers and all the associated bureaucracy. That was not to criticise the conduct of the Saville Inquiry, it was just that in these circumstances, the Prime Minister did not believe an inquiry of that kind would be appropriate and would be able to report in the right timeframe.

Asked if it would be up to Sir John Chilcot to decide whether there would be public hearings and if so how many, the PMS replied that it would be up to Sir John Chilcot to consider how the precise format of the inquiry should be structured in order to meet the objectives that he had set. The PMS advised people not to get too ahead of themselves as Sir John Chilcot had only just been appointed and he would no doubt want to consult with his colleagues and others.

Asked if he was saying that a public inquiry might be more bureaucratic and lengthy, the PMS said that it was a matter of fact that some public inquiries had gone on for many, many years and involved a large amount of bureaucracy. That was not the kind of inquiry that we thought would be appropriate for an issue such as Iraq, where it was important for people to be able to speak openly and candidly. It was important that the inquiry was able to look at and ask people questions on the full range of sensitive material. It was difficult to draw direct analogies, but we would not want to be in a situation where we had an inquiry dragging on for years.

Asked if Sir John Chilcot could decide to extend the number of people and the range of expertise on the panel, the PMS said that we had appointed the people who would be conducting this inquiry. Sir John Chilcot had only just been appointed and he would want to consider a whole range of issues. He was specifically being asked to look at the detailed format of the inquiry. The people who had been asked to conduct the inquiry were people of very high public standing and recognised experts in their fields. They were fully independent and we were absolutely confident that they would behave in a way that was completely consistent with their independent status.

Put that yesterday the PMS had suggested that people could only speak freely if they were doing so in private, the PMS said he would not have words put in his mouth. The position was that our objective was to get to the truth; there were a lot of sensitive issues that would need to be considered here and people would need to be cross-examined on them.

Put that Sir Richard Dannatt had not been consulted, the PMS replied that we had operated through the military hierarchy; the Chief of the Defence Staff had been consulted and he was content with the format of the inquiry.

Asked who made the final decision on whether it was public or private, the PMS said that Sir John Chilcot would have to consider what was the most appropriate form of structuring specific evidence sessions. He would have to take into account intelligence, operational and military considerations. Asked if he would have the remit to make the final decision, the PMS replied that Sir John Chilcot was the Chairman of the inquiry and whatever view he came up with would have to be taken very seriously by the Government.

Asked if the ultimate decision rested with the Prime Minister, the PMS said that the significant issue for the Government was that the objectives of the inquiry were met and that was as set out in the Prime Minister’s letter. The Prime Minister would need to be satisfied that the objectives were being met.

Asked if it would have been better to get a political consensus on the issue before the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, the PMS said we would always want to operate in a consensual way where possible; that was possible for example in the setting up of the Parliamentary Standards Authority but sometimes it was not always possible.

Asked why Lord Butler had said that the Government was putting political interests ahead of the national interest, the PMS said that that question should be put to Lord Butler. Put that it was a very serious charge, the PMS said that it was a charge that we would completely reject. Asked if there was any foundation to it whatsoever, the PMS said that there was not.

Asked if Tony Blair had been one of the former Ministers written to by the Prime Minister, the PMS replied that the letter said that the Prime Minister had consulted all relevant former Ministers. Asked if this would include going beyond the Ministers themselves, for example Alastair Campbell, the PMS said that the Prime Minister’s clear expectation was that those people who were asked to appear before this committee should do so.

Asked if anyone from the former American administration would be asked to appear, the PMS said that that would be a matter for the inquiry to consider.

Asked if the Government understood why the people wanted a public inquiry, the PMS said that Iraq was a divisive issue and had been for many years. That was why it was important that we got to the truth and why we should conduct the inquiry in a way that got to the truth. What we didn’t want was an inquiry that dragged on for years, and involved lawyers and a lot of bureaucracy. So we wanted to see an inquiry that could report as quickly as possible, but was also thorough and comprehensive and was able to look properly at all of the evidence, including all of the very sensitive evidence that they would no doubt need to look at.

Asked what as soon as possible would mean in terms of a timeframe, the PMS replied that we had said on Monday that we thought it would take at least a year given the complexity of the issues.

Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s stance that he had no theological objection to holding some of the hearings in public, the PMS said that the issue for the Government had always been to ensure that the inquiry was structured in a way that got to the truth and people were able to speak honestly and candidly about what had happened and the decisions that were taken, so that we could learn the lessons. The question of whether some of this might be in public or not had never been seen as some great issue of theology; the issue was how best to meet the objectives of the inquiry.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iraq

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries