Sir John Chilcot, the head of the £10 million inquiry into the Iraq war, broke his silence in the face of mounting criticism yesterday but provoked fury by refusing to give a timetable for publication.
Relatives of British servicemen killed in Iraq said that they “need closure” as Sir John hit back at censure of the six-year wait for his findings and revealed that he might have to pursue fresh lines of inquiry. His comments came as a leading QC launched a scathing attack on witnesses who were holding up publication of the Chilcot inquiry.
All those facing criticism over their role in the British invasion of Iraq have been given the chance to respond, in a process known as Maxwellisation.
Writing in The Times Sir Robert Francis, who led a public inquiry into the scandal of poor care at Stafford Hospital, said that “aggressive or uncooperative tactics” by former politicians, military officers or civil servants contacted by Sir John may strengthen the case against them.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, threatened to shatter a truce between witnesses by revealing that she had been contacted and blamed the delay on a “very poor” first draft that was the size of War and Peace and needed to be rewritten.
Advertisement
Sir John spoke out yesterday for the first time since the eruption of a bitter row over the long wait for the report into Britain’s involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq. The review was opened in 2009 by Gordon Brown. Sir John said that he understood the anguish of the relatives of the 179 British military personnel killed in the conflict, but that the inquiry must be rigorous and fair. He refused to set a date for concluding his work.
In an admission suggesting that the report’s publication could be months away, he said that he was still seeking the declassification of official documents and awaiting responses from witnesses. He revealed that the process had “opened up new issues” and suggested further work may be needed. David Cameron has led calls for the inquiry panel to outline a schedule for completion, urging the team to “get on with it”. His frustration has been echoed by other senior politicians, legal experts and a former head of the army.
Sir John said that he would await the final Maxwellisation responses before deciding on the next steps and providing a timetable. Downing Street remained silent over the statement — a clear sign that the prime minister was unimpressed with his intervention. Sir John said that the process of giving witnesses an opportunity to respond to criticism was confidential. In the first breach of that rule Ms Short, who resigned from Tony Blair’s cabinet over the war, revealed details of the report’s draft findings.
She told the World at One on BBC Radio 4 that Sir John would cast his net far beyond Mr Blair’s inner circle to lay blame at the feet of “senior permanent secretaries, the top of the civil service, everybody”. Ms Short said the breadth of figures criticised suggested that the inquiry would conclude that “everyone is to blame, no one is to blame”, adding: “It won’t be helpful in finding out what went wrong with our system.”
She did not believe that the Maxwellisation process was the main cause of the delay. “I think what might be true is that the draft is very poor and it’s as big as War and Peace. Lots of people have made serious responses and they are probably having to redraft,” she said. Her assertion that the Department for International Development had handled the fallout from the 2003 war “superbly” is likely to infuriate other former ministers, however, and threatens to destroy a pact of silence among those facing rebuke.
Advertisement
Sir John faces the threat of judicial review over the delay to his findings. Lawyers acting for a group of 29 military families had set a deadline of 5pm yesterday for the chairman to name a date for publication. Reg Keys, whose son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was killed in Iraq in 2003, said that he and other families were “extremely frustrated about this endless delay”.