Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2015
Today, the First Minister reminded us of the words that Prime Minister Gordon Brown used when he launched the Chilcot inquiry. He promised that it would help us to learn lessons that would strengthen our democracy. The delay in the publication of the report must surely undermine that original promise. The lesson that is offered by the scandalous delay is a harsh one. Is the “health of our democracy”, to use Mr Brown’s words, really served by the impression of tiptoeing around powerful vested interests?
In the run-up to the invasion, I was working as the deputy editor of The Herald newspaper. At that time, The Herald called for a United Nations resolution to be obtained before any invasion could even be contemplated. The paper also strove for a balance, given its long reputation as a journal of record, and it reported the Government’s case in good faith on its news pages. I remember the day on which the so-called “dodgy dossier” was published by the UK Government and the efforts that were made to present the story with the appropriate prominence, gravity and analysis.
At that time, even those who opposed the war did not know how far they were being misled. Parts of the media, of course, would have been gung-ho for war whatever the evidence, but other, responsible titles were unwittingly pulled into the deception. That was, of course, before considering the information that we never got to see at the time. We hope that Chilcot will reveal that information.
Shortly after the inquiry opened, it heard one of the most devastating pieces of oral evidence, from Sir Christopher Meyer, who was the UK’s ambassador to the US prior to the war. He stated that, after a private meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in April 2002, Mr Blair’s rhetoric began to reflect the idea of regime change. He also claimed that military preparations for war overrode the diplomatic process. That seemed to be confirmed by Tony Blair when he appeared before the inquiry the following year. The tone of his evidence suggested that regime change was, indeed, what motivated him.
It is worrying that crucial evidence was withheld from the inquiry, as has already been mentioned. In particular, it is worrying that the correspondence between Blair and Bush in the run-up to the war was withheld. That very special relationship was key to how events unravelled. Blair gave Bush credibility at home and abroad. It beggars belief that a Labour Government would lend the camouflage of credibility to the neo-conservative extremists around Bush.
We know that the inquiry was extensive, with the last witness giving evidence in 2011, but the extensive wait is completely unacceptable. In addition, many members of the public will be surprised to learn that we are apparently being made to wait to allow those criticised in the report to scrutinise it, make comments and demand changes—a practice referred to as the Maxwellisation process. The process is named after the late Robert Maxwell, who took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry when it found in an inquiry that he was not a fit and proper person to lead a public company. As subsequent events proved, the DTI was right. How ironic that Maxwell is coming to the aide of Mr Blair, who many believe was not a fit and proper person to lead a country
The wider point—the one which we must address in the interest of the health of our democracy—is: how did Blair get away with it? What was it about the Westminster Government system that allowed those calamitous decisions to be taken in secret?
In the spirit of the cross-party consensus, I will mention one piece of Chilcot evidence: many members of the UK Labour Cabinet were excluded from decision making. I therefore welcome the fact that the Scottish Labour Party is supporting the Scottish Government motion.
Chilcot must answer all those questions. For truth’s sake, voters must see the report before passing judgment on the Westminster system and politicians this May.
14:26