The Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq has led to an unprecedented dispute in Whitehall over the disclosure of sensitive and highly classified documents. The question now is how strenuously those criticised in the inquiry’s draft report – almost certainly including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, among many others – will object, leading to further delays.
However, after more than a year of heated exchanges, the inquiry has succeeded in breaking a longstanding convention that reports of conversations between a British prime minister and a foreign leader – in this case, Tony Blair and George Bush – can be published.
This became clear as Sir John Chilcot was questioned for more than an hour by the Commons foreign affairs committee. Chilcot did not apologise for the delay in producing his report. Far from it.
The inquiry panel, which started work in 2009, at first indicated that it could publish its report by 2011. It will not now see the light of day until well after the general election. That has annoyed MPs and upset many families of those killed in Iraq after the invasion. On Wednesday, Chilcot did his best to explain the reasons for the delay.
The inquiry, which heard evidence from more than 150 witnesses, had to analyse more than 160,000 government documents. And its authors had to fight to get Whitehall to agree to publish, at least in part, more than 200 cabinet minutes, 30 notes Blair sent to Bush, and records of conversations between the two leaders.
Negotiations on the cabinet minutes are still going on, Chilcot said, as he hinted at extraordinary disputes with the ultimate guardian of official secrecy, the cabinet secretary – first Sir Gus (now Lord) O’Donnell, then the current holder of the post, Sir Jeremy Heywood. It was a “very challenging process”, Chilcot told the MPs, adopting a choice mandarin euphemism.
But he said he had won, in exchanges with Heywood, a key principle, breaking the age-old convention that records of private conversations between a British prime minister and a foreign leader could never be published. His report will contain some of these, Chilcot indicated. If it does, it will represent a significant step towards more open government.
Chilcot has now embarked on the “Maxwellisation process”, whereby those the inquiry intends to criticise will be sent draft passages of the report for comment.
Choosing his words carefully, Chilcot told the Commons committee that “as matters stand today”, there was no evidence that individuals were using the Maxwellisation process to delay the report further. He did not deny that one key player had been sent a hundred pages to comment on.
Chilcot, who said he was given just 10 minutes to accept the task, said he was surprised it had taken so long. But the former mandarin should not have been. After all, he had accepted that Whitehall would have the final say in what should be published, and what withheld, “in the public interest”.
The death of Sir Martin Gilbert, a member of the inquiry panel who had been ill for some time, had not affected the timing of the inquiry, Chilcot made a point of telling the MPs.
