Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
1339.  Sir Kevin Tebbit told the Inquiry that “the so-called comprehensive concept did
exist in Whitehall, the idea that we needed to have integrated planning to bring all the
instruments of government to bear on the issue … and we certainly had transparency”,
but argued that this was very difficult to achieve quickly across different departmental
cultures.576
1340.  Sir Kevin added: “I always felt that we could not quite get other departments to
share the urgency that we felt in the Ministry of Defence in terms of their own planning
with us.”
1341.  Lord Boyce told the Inquiry that the MOD did not consider that it was its role to
take the lead on post-conflict issues: “It was something that possibly should have been
done by the Foreign Office or even DFID.”577
1342.  Witnesses offered differing views on whether the Government’s
performance would have been improved by the appointment of a senior individual
responsible for directing post-conflict planning or the earlier introduction of better
planning machinery.
1343.  Asked by the Inquiry whether UK planning could have been better, Mr Blair
stated:
“I do accept that, yes … If we were sitting down today, now, if we were in a situation
of nation-building again, I think there are changes in our approach that certainly
should be done …
“I think … the real issue is what you focus on less than the structure; in other words,
you could say that we should have had one Minister focusing on the pre-planning,
but I would debate that actually, but you may conclude that … The core of the
problem was the focus of what that planning was.”578
1344.  Lord Turnbull shared Mr Blair’s view that the absence of Ministerial oversight was
not necessarily the “real issue”.579 Asked about the absence of an individual or body
with overall responsibility for planning, he argued that, although there was no “single
controlling mind” and co-ordination should have been better, this was “not material to
the outcome”.
1345.  Sir Suma Chakrabarti took a different view. He told the Inquiry:
“… it would have been better to have had the IPU earlier, firstly, and, secondly,
probably a Minister, preferably of Cabinet rank … who was … the overlord Minister
for this, either in the Cabinet Office or in the Foreign Office … because this was a
576 Public hearing, 3 December 2009, pages 116-117.
577 Public hearing, 27 January 2008, page 68.
578 Public hearing, 21 January 2011, pages 130-131.
579 Public hearing, 25 January 2011, pages 55-56.
548
Previous page | Contents | Next page