Gordon Brown was under intense pressure last night to throw open a new inquiry into the Iraq war to the public as families of soldiers who died, and anti-war MPs, reacted with horror to suggestions it would be held largely in secret.

 

Cabinet sources said the prime minister would announce an inquiry early this week, probably on Tuesday. Its structure would be "similar but not identical" to the Franks inquiry into the 1982 Falklands war, which was held behind closed doors.

 

Last night, as families of the dead said they would march on Downing Street if any of its deliberations were kept secret, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg stoked the controversy saying he would boycott the entire investigation if it was not open, wide in its remit and did not report speedily.

 

Clegg told the Observer that, unless those in charge were granted full access to all documents, could subpoena witnesses, had a remit to look back to events at least a year before the war began and reported within months, the inquiry would be seen as a sham.

 

He said: "If it does not have this kind of remit, my party will not back it or participate. We are talking about the biggest foreign policy mistake since Suez. To lock a bunch of grandees behind closed doors in secret and wait for them to come up with a puff of smoke, like the election of the pope ... would be an insult."

 

Clegg added that the inquiry could be held on the lines of an open Commons select committee that the public and press could attend. "This inquiry is an acid test for all of Gordon Brown's talk of reforming British politics," he said.

 

"If he holds it all or partly in secret and kicks the eventual report into the long grass, it will be a betrayal of all those families who lost children serving in Iraq. They need answers, not another Whitehall stitch-up."

 

Labour MP Alan Simpson, chair of Labour Against the War, said Brown's strategy of using the inquiry as part of a personal political fight-back and to win favour with his backbenchers was in danger of backfiring spectacularly. "If it is done secretively, it could be the final nail in his coffin," he said.

 

"We need no less rigorous an examination on this than we had on the far less important issue of MPs' expenses. A secret examination would be worthless."

 

The announcement of an inquiry comes just weeks after British troops officially ended combat operations in Iraq after a six-year campaign in which 179 British servicemen and women died.

 

The war, which was supported by Brown and which he financed as chancellor, cost the British taxpayer approximately £6.5bn, or roughly £1bn a year, equating to about £100 from every man, woman and child in the country.

 

Rose Gentle, whose teenage son, Gordon, was killed in Iraq in 2004, said that families who had lost sons and daughters in the conflict would march on Downing Street to protest if the proposed Iraq inquiry was "closed". She said it was vital that the government dispelled concerns over the reasons for invading Iraq.

 

"What is the point of an inquiry behind closed doors? No family would be happy with that. We already feel that we have been lied to by the government. We don't want any more lies. We would be prepared to go to Downing Street if the inquiry is not transparent."

 

Philip Cooper, whose son Jamie was the youngest soldier seriously injured in Iraq, said: "Ministers should not treat us like us mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on $h!t."

 

Former Labour defence minister Peter Kilfoyle, who moved a parliamentary amendment to stop the war in early 2003 that attracted support from more than 130 Labour MPs, said: "Nothing but a completely full inquiry will do."

 

Those pressing for an inquiry argue that the war may have been illegal under international law and that Tony Blair made a wholly inadequate case for war by overblowing the case against Saddam Hussein, based on dubious intelligence.

 

Attorney general Lord Goldsmith's advice to the government over the legality of the 2003 invasion would also be a key part of any inquiry.

 

The Conservatives, who supported the war but have since questioned the government's handling of the run-up to the conflict, welcomed the inquiry and are broadly happy with a Franks-style investigation. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "Given that many key decisions and events were in 2002 and 2003, it is vital that an inquiry starts work with all possible speed. It is crucial that it has access to all government papers, and that it is able to report on what went wrong with the planning and co-ordination of the occupation of Iraq, as well as the decisions about the war itself."

 

Source: The Observer

Surely this must be held in the open , or will that prevent people telling the truth? If its behind closed doors are people more likely to tell the truth, but we might never hear about it as it might be covered up, especially if it looks bad for Blair & co.

I'm totally with Nick Clegg 100%... And I would march on Downing Street WITH the families of dead soldiers if they'd have me... My cousin served in that piece of sh"t "war" and he resigned from the army after 12 years service because of it.... If any of this is held behind closed doors then it's an affront to Democracy, decency and and insult to every soldier who served out there and their families as well, and it will really prove once and for all that Nu Labor really does = Old Tory.......

Blair demanded: Hold Iraq inquiry in secret

 

The row over the decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry behind closed doors escalated last night as it emerged that Tony Blair pressed Gordon Brown to keep it private.

 

In a move that will deepen the outrage of families of British soldiers killed in Iraq, the former prime minister, one of the architects of the controversial war, wanted the hearings to be held in secret to avoid a public and media circus.

 

A public appearance by Mr Blair before the Chilcot inquiry would also damage his ambitions of becoming EU president, a role that needs the support of European countries that opposed the war.

 

Last Monday the Prime Minister announced the long-awaited inquiry into the war in an attempt to shore up his premiership and appease Labour backbenchers. But he immediately caused anger by revealing that the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot and a panel of other privy councillors, would be held in private.

 

In the face of anger from generals and bereaved families, Mr Brown performed a partial U-turn on Thursday by agreeing to some public sessions, although the hearings will be mainly behind closed doors.

 

Now, in a fresh twist, it has emerged that Mr Blair intervened to influence the PM's decision.

 

It is understood that Mr Blair did not ask Mr Brown directly but through intermediaries, who asked Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to urge the Prime Minister to hold a secret inquiry.

 

Downing Street sources were quoted last week as saying the Prime Minister had considered holding it in public, and Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and a close ally of Mr Brown, said he backed a more "open" inquiry.

 

The revelation will raise further questions over Mr Brown's authority and suggests how keen he is not to upset Mr Blair and his allies. It came as Mr Brown told The Guardian yesterday that he could "walk away from all of this tomorrow", in a sign of the intense pressure he is under.

 

Supporters of Mr Blair, meanwhile, said there was a fear that the former prime minister being hauled before a public court would end up with him falling victim to "mob justice".

 

The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said last night: "If this is true, it only adds to the case for the inquiry to be open to the public whenever possible. The terms of the inquiry should not be set by the former prime minister whose policies and actions will be most under scrutiny. Mr Brown should have the courage to make his own decisions."

 

Asked if Mr Blair had, through third parties, asked for the inquiry to be private, a spokesman for the former PM said only: "It is a decision for the current Prime Minister."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions. Sir John Chilcot will make recommendations on how he believes the inquiry would be conducted effectively."

 

As members of the Privy Council, Sir John and his panel will have full access to government documents. Mr Blair and a number of former ministers, army commanders and generals are expected to give evidence.

When he announced the scope of the inquiry in Parliament, Mr Brown said issues of national security prevented it from being fully open. But this was immediately rebuffed by a several generals.

 

Despite No 10's insistence that a "number of people" were consulted, the head of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, last week revealed he had not been consulted on the format of the inquiry and said he saw "a lot of merit" in holding some hearings in public.

 

His predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the Army at the time of the 2003 invasion, said he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public. Private hearings would only serve to fuel a climate of "suspicion and scepticism".

Meanwhile, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major warned of a "whitewash" unless there was full disclosure.

 

This week a motion tabled by the Conservatives and put to the House, says: "The proceedings of the committee of inquiry should whenever possible be held in public."

Writing on his blog, Mr Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who is likely to be called to give evidence at the inquiry, denied being involved in playing a key part in persuading the PM to hold it in private.

 

He said it was "not an open-and-shut case that the inquiry should be held in public", adding: "I can see the arguments for both sides – openness and transparency favours a public inquiry; but it may well be that the inquiry will do a better job freed from the frenzy of 24-hour media."

 

He said he found out about the inquiry when he read about it in the newspapers before the weekend.

 

In a letter to Sir John Chilcot last Wednesday, Mr Brown began backtracking by suggesting that there could be some public sessions.

 

He added: " I am fully committed to a thorough and independent inquiry. I have written to all relevant current and former ministers to underline the importance of their full co-operation. And the Cabinet Secretary is writing to departments to underline the need for full transparency.

 

"It is essential that all those appearing before the inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness, and the inquiry itself proceeds as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process."

 

Source: The Independent

 

No surprise that the report will be issued after the next election, draw your own conclusions from that.

There are some perfectly valid arguments for holding the whole thing behind closed doors. I don't necessarily agree with them but that doesn't make them invalid. However, in the current political climate, it was a daft idea to try to do that. It has to be held in public as far as possible with only limited amounts of evidence given in secret.

Supporters of Mr Blair, meanwhile, said there was a fear that the former prime minister being hauled before a public court would end up with him falling victim to "mob justice".

 

As far as I'm concerned, B-Liar AND Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremmer, et al, should be up before the Hague on war crimes charges...... <_<

There are some perfectly valid arguments for holding the whole thing behind closed doors. I don't necessarily agree with them but that doesn't make them invalid.

 

I'm sorry but I just dont agree with that at all.... Some things, some issues are just far too important to be secret.... The people we elect should be forced to answer very uncomfortable questions about this... And if they dont, or if they lie, then we lock them up until they tell us the truth...... They made a decision that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and that decision led to the July 7 Attacks in London. So, they DAMN well better answer these questions in a public forum......

I'm sorry but I just dont agree with that at all.... Some things, some issues are just far too important to be secret.... The people we elect should be forced to answer very uncomfortable questions about this... And if they dont, or if they lie, then we lock them up until they tell us the truth...... They made a decision that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and that decision led to the July 7 Attacks in London. So, they DAMN well better answer these questions in a public forum......

I thought that would be your response :lol: The biggest concern is that people (civil servants etc.) who felt under pressure to do their masters' bidding must feel able to say so. That may mean that they give their evidence in public. Most of Blair's evidence should be given in public. There may be good reasons why some evidence should be given in secret but that decision should not be made by Blair himself.