Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind

A good Inquiry

16 January 2010

The Iraq Inquiry is doing what it is supposed to.

Like many with an interest in politics, I’ve been following the Iraq Inquiry very closely. It has been fascinating thus far. Spin doctors, military chiefs, intelligence professionals and former ministers have all appeared to give evidence. However, from those constituents who have contacted me, there seems to be a sense of disappointment. There seems to be a feeling that the inquiry ought to be acting more like a prosecutor in a courtroom.  I believe that this sense of disappointment is unnecessary. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning as being an unnecessary conflict. I, more than most, would be happy to see ‘blood on the floor’ at the committee’s hearings. However, it is important to remember what the Chilcott Inquiry is doing. At this stage, it is simply gathering evidence. There are a wealth of speeches and documents to go through, and the chance to interview witnesses is vital to making sense of them all. When Tony Blair testifies, do not expect the questions to focus on anything other than facts and technical points.  That does not prevent the committee from going on the offensive when it moves to the second stage. Once it has asked all the questions it wishes to ask, the committee will write a report summarising its findings. These reports are designed to aide policy making in future. However, they can do so by pointing out where things went wrong, and criticising those who were responsible. Indeed, last year I pressed the Foreign Secretary to confirm that the Inquiry would be empowered to blame individuals if it so choose. With some reluctance he conceded this to be true.  That is why there is no cause for despair. The members of the inquiry are distinguished professionals. I have every confidence that they will write a write a thorough report on the causes and conduct of the war, and will not hold back if they find that certain individuals are to blame for specific failings.