Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

The inquiry into the Iraq war, chaired by Sir John Chilcot was announced this week. Aside from the criticisms regarding the fact that  the make up of the panel may not lead to true scrutiny of the Government- most are ex civil servants, former Ambassadors, Oxbrige educated- there is a fundamental issue arising as to whether the inquiry is worth conducting at all under the current structure by which inquiries are held.

Sir John Chilcot insists that they will take as much evidence as possible in public, but that some evidence will be heard in private ‘for security reasons’ ( and who will define what security reasons are, I hear you ask?) He also states that they will hear from the families of victims killed during the Iraq war, and that they will also visit Iraq to take evidence.

Nonetheless, this inquiry will work within the confines of the Inquiries Act of 2005, which repeals the  Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 that allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had “all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court‘, and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister. This Act was introduced a month before the 7/7 bombings, and has received widespread criticism from the Law Society and Amnesty International. Amnesty has gone as far as to call on judges not to take up chairs of panels of any inquiries under the Act, and the family of Pat Finucane, killed by loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast said they would not take part in any forthcoming inquiry would it to be held under the terms of the Act. 

Here are the details of the Act-

the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;

each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;

the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;

the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;

the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive’s discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive’s discretion, “in the public interest”.

 

Judge Peter Cory from Canada has stated that ‘ the proposed new act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible’ and that ‘Ministers could thwart efforts of the inquiry at every step’, and the Chairman of the US Congress committee on human rights, Chris Smith said it was ‘the public inquiries cover up bill‘.  This, notwithstanding the controversy leading up to the establishment of the  current Iraq inquiry, has prompted Lib dem MP David Heath to propose a private members bill, titled ‘ Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry‘  to enable Members of Parliament to initiate inquiries. He states-

 

“When we need an inquiry because of a matter of great public concern, it should be this House that takes the decision, not a member of the Executive and not a Minister… There are 1,001 reasons why Ministers may not wish there to be a public inquiry into aspects of their conduct or the conduct of others in their control. There are so many reasons for them to delay, obfuscate or misdirect, rather than to have the searching after truth that a properly constituted public inquiry can provide.”

This Bill had its first reading in Westminster on July the 9th this year, and the second reading will be in October. It would make provision for ‘establishing a commission of inquiry subsequent to a resolution of Parliament into matters relating to the conduct of a Minister of the Crown; to make further provision for establishing a commission of inquiry into particular events which have or may have occurred and which have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern; to set out the procedures for setting up such a commission of inquiry, its powers, rights and privileges; to amend the Inquiries Act 2005; and for connected purposes.”

I can’t find definitive information on the internet from organisations that support the Bill, but please tell me if you find something, yet  it is clear that many members of the Conservatives and the Labour party have announced their support for the Bill. Until amendments of this kind are introduced, or the role of the legislature is recognised in forming inquiries of such a sensitive nature for the government, I find it difficult to envisage how this most recent inquiry in to the Iraq war will differ from the Hutton inquiry to any true extent or meaning. The Chilcot inquiry has already noted that it does not foresee taking evidence from US sources, and the Inquiries Act shows quite clearly that public access to the evidence can be restricted, and that the relevant Minister can exert undue control over the situation.

I am not trying to be overtly cynical here, but surely, if we want a truly open, independent and successful inquiry then this cannot be achieved under the current arrangements. It will thus only serve to leave us with more questions unanswered at the end of the process about a war that many of us believe was illegal from the outset, and has led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis, notwithstanding the death of British troops.