No remorse or apology for Parliament's greatest mistake.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 10 months ago published a report outlining lessons the Government could learn from the Chilcot Inquiry.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/708/708.pdf

The Government published a wholly inadequate response to the report a few days before Christmas.. Regrettably the response contains no remorse and Ministers disagree with most recommendations. 

Today I raised the issue with a Minister standing in at Business Questions for Leader of the House Andrea Leadson..

·       Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Yesterday, Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, one of the first soldiers to die in the Iraq war, expressed her regret at the Government statement that seems to absolve Parliament from the conclusions of the Chilcot report. We need, as she called for, an act of apology from this House and this Parliament. It was not one man; it was the Opposition and three Select Committees, who were cheerleaders for that worst mistake we have made this century. Would not a suitable act of apology be followed by the reading of the names of the 179 soldiers whom we sent to their deaths

·       Paul Maynard

The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent campaigner on this issue over many years and has earned the House’s respect for his consistency. I will ensure that I pass his comments on to the Leader of the House, who I am sure will do her best to get him a suitable response to his point

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. In bold type are Committee's suggested reforms.

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

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Ad. That is useful. Nothing is policy. The Government has taken nearly a year to respond to PACACs response to Chilcots 7 year inquiry. This is arthritic sloth pace. No intention of correcting the power abuse that sent our brave soldiers to die in vain.

Paul Flynn

[Ad]

The report you link to doesn't mention how much policy is set and informed by the priorities of foreign governments, namely the USA, and the ideological and economic underpinnings. Significant improvements seem to have been made, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask "to what extent is a policy made because they want to stand "shoulder to shoulder"?", and, "to what extent does ideology insist upon what is in the interests of the few?". For example, the American establishment sets our own parameters, or rather those of the government. So, not to do the hard work that has been done down, should the situation arise again how can they say "all things being equal, these are our priorities and capabilities, and these are the logical outcomes", rather than "this is the range of possibilities as we follow American leadership" (with all that it entails), and that all these improvements do not simply become so many fig-leaves used to cloud true responsibility and an apparatus to lean on after the fact to make things look better? How does the 'national interest' not become embroiled in standing behind America for the economic and military benefit it brings to some?

So, I'll try and speak to your own question, others can can answer it differently.

To not even officially acknowledge a mistake (i.e. apologise) is not only wrong, it is also a bad move for us. To trust instead in terms of 'correcting' mistakes that amounts to setting up more efficient bureaucracy, which they trust will keep us safe, doesn't acknowledge the truth. History will repeat itself because:

* There isn't a 'national interest' as such.
* Branches have been set up, supposedly to gain a more thorough understanding, however, as the report you link to says, the culture and 'group-think' is largely unshakeable. As is the tendency to defer to and try and please your colleagues and superiors.
* Ultimately they serve the system, the 'financial climate', and so all serve one cause, i.e. the rotting corpse that they are trying to bandage up.

So yes, where is the anger (at themselves even) and where is the contrition? It has to be shown because the foundations will surely crumble unless the attitude is right, and at some point there will be a price to pay for it.