Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2015
Not for one minute have I suggested that this is not about people, and I reject the inference. People will be best served by a proper inquiry that has undertaken all the due processes that give it total legitimacy, and that is what we need. That the report will be published as soon as possible is what Sir John has said will happen, and that is what we in the Conservatives will support.
In a reply to a written parliamentary question from Rhoda Grant on 25 November last year about the delay in publication of the report of the Scottish public inquiry into hepatitis C/HIV, Maureen Watt, as the newly appointed minister, said:
“As the member will be aware, the Penrose Inquiry is independent of Scottish Ministers and it is for the Chairman, Lord Penrose, to decide on the progress and timetabling of the Inquiry.”—[Written Answers, 3 December 2014; S4W-23426.]
If that is good enough for inquiries that the Scottish Government instituted, surely it is the right process for Chilcot.
In all honesty, I do not really understand why the Government has chosen to debate the matter at all, other than for narrow political reasons. However, as the amendment in my name reflects, the independence of the process has to take precedence over any other factor. That is why we cannot support the Government’s motion at decision time.
I move amendment S4M-12182.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:
“accepts that the timing of the release of the findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq is entirely for the inquiry itself to decide; expresses its disappointment that the inquiry has now stated that its findings will not be published before the 2015 general election, and, despite Sir John Chilcot’s statement confirming this, calls on him to publish the inquiry’s findings as soon as possible.”
14:18Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
- S4W-23426 Question
- S4M-12182.1 The Chilcot Inquiry Motion