British troops in Iraq. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No matter how "punchy", the Chilcot report remains an afterthought

The findings of the long-awaited Chilcot inquiry are reportedly sending shockwaves through Whitehall. When will the Prime Minister start taking it seriously?

In an exclusive report, the Times reveals that draft reports of the Chilcot inquiry "have sent shockwaves through Whitehall".

According to the report, extracts from the long-awaited official inquiry into the Iraq war have spooked key figures who were involved, because it is far more critical and damning than expected. An insider is quoted saying, "it's much more punchy than people thought it was going to be".

The piece also quotes a government whip, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, saying that the consultation of lawyers could postpone the already severely delayed publication of the report until after the general election in May:  “We are all anxious that if it is not published by the end of February it would be inappropriate to publish it during the campaign period.”

The inquiry was announced by Gordon Brown in June 2009, and commenced in November that year. It concluded in February 2011, so we have now been waiting over three and a half years for it to release its findings. David Cameron said in May that he hoped the Chilcot inquiry would be unveiled by the end of this year, but this now looks highly unlikely. He acknowledged this last week, claiming that he did not know when it would come out, and insisting: “It is important in our system these sort of reports are not controlled or timed by the government.”

Although the PM has emphasised the importance of hearing the inquiry's findings, it is clear that the report remains an afterthought behind the scenes. And not just because of the repeated delays and prevarication over when we can expect it to be published.

I hear from a well-placed MP that it was only very shortly before a Westminster Hall debate on the Chilcot inquiry was called in October this year that the Cabinet Office minister for civil society, Rob Wilson MP, discovered that the Chilcot inquiry was even part of his brief. This low priority suggests No 10 not only sees the report as being very far off on the political horizon, but also reveals the lack of significance it lends the inquiry.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.