Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report

 

Last year the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an investigation on lessons learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. Following an evaluation of the evidence the Committee published recommendations for Government. 

Government responded to the advice this week, extracts from the paper are below.

 

 

Parliament should in future have a full debate and vote on an amendable motion, setting out the precise terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the Inquiry.

 

Government does not accept this recommendation.

Public inquiries take many forms…will often need to be established quickly to respond to issues of urgent public concern. Government believes that the current approach to establishing inquiries provides the appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility.

 

 

It is no longer acceptable that the present arrangements should continue without stronger means to prevent key ministers, or even the whole Cabinet from being sidelined. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object to a PM.

 

The Government does not agree with the Committee’s finding that there is an absence of safeguards on decision-making within Government.

When decisions on military intervention have been taken, the NSC and its sub-committees and officials groups have prepared decisions fully and there has been a full discussion of the issue in Cabinet before decisions were taken.

 

 

We agree with the Iraq Inquiry that the Intelligence and Security Committee should play a key role in strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies.

 

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has substantial powers to access and scrutinise sensitive information.

 

 

We acknowledge the seriousness of Dr Rangwala’s conclusions (that Blair deliberately misled the House) and recognise that his report supports the view held by many members of the House. We note Chilcot believes there was no decision by the then Prime Minister to deceive.

This Committee is not in a position to take up and investigate further Dr Rangwala’s conclusions. Should further evidence come to light the House may wish to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee.

 

The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion.

 

 

Government and Parliament should take the necessary steps to ensure that future Inquiries do not experience such unacceptable delays.

 

It will be rare that an Inquiry will have the scope and scale of the Iraq Inquiry. The time it took to report was in large part due to the complexity and scope of the issues it was examining.

 

 

We reiterate the recommendations of PASC, across its three reports on strategic thinking in government, that the NSC requires far greater capability in strategic thinking and analysis and would greatly benefit from having its own capacity to synthesise assessment and analysis.

 

The Government does not accept the Committee’s finding.

 

 

Comments

[Ad]

There is an extent to which things can be said to be done in error, and not deliberately. There is also a judgement to be made that a certain action/decision was wrong (morally, first and foremost), and then that the decision led to some further bad outcomes and consequences. Or opened doors for the bloodshed, evil and destruction which followed. And which, at the end of the day, is a decision which events have proven to be the wrong one.

A good person restrains themselves in such circumstances. Acts with the uppermost good sense and care, and being responsible; gets it right. Has a strong grasp of the practicalities and logical outcomes, is in action and outward appearance at the furthest point from vainglory as can be reasonably expected. Does not seek commendation and applause at home and abroad. Nor act accordingly. And finally, seeks honour of its true nature.

Now, I think, this line of argument shows Blair as very much human, giving in to the temptations (not to imply that they are minor) I talk about rather than a uniquely selfish and reckless madman. He should though, have known better. It rather speaks to a very flawed individual. And therefore his heart was certainly NOT 'in the right place'. And, not to make a meal of it, this is further evidenced in the faulty doctrines he did and does espouse. That is not cynical, its about as cold as I can be on the subject. Hypocrisy and lies (and swimming up to your neck habitually in this) inevitably spawn horrible consequences.

I hope that is at least somewhat constructive. In any case that is something like a 'lessons learned' argument of my own. Others can disagree.