Chilcott And Presumptions

It seems to me that Clegg does – or did – understand the issues around 'presumption of disclosure'. I wrote to him about this in November and he replied in the right terms. By coincidence he ambushed Brown on the issue a few weeks later, just after the public hearings began, accusing Brown of "suffocating" the inquiry. He seemed to understand the issue was that the inquiry had to ask permission for each and every disclosure, with nine separate reasons for refusal and with the government ultimately having a veto. He challenged Brown to withhold information only on grounds of national security. In January, Clegg said that the inability of the Chilcot team to properly question witnesses meant it was being "gagged". He also claimed it would be a "cover-up" if secret documents relating to Blair, who gave evidence the next day, could not be discussed.

Last Sunday – under questioning from Philippe Sands QC – Clegg agreed there should be a "presumption of publication" and that national security would be the only reason for blocking publication of any documents. These are significant developments, and you can hear the audio recording here. But Clegg was far less clear about when anything may be released, putting a worrying emphasis on publication alongside the inquiry's final report and citing unspecified difficulties in "trying to unpick" the way the inquiry works. And the Cabinet Office has told the BBC – having failed to give me any clarification – that it is not going to change the protocol. If that is true, nothing will change. Documents will still be suppressed for reasons other than national security.

As Sands pointed out on the Today programme this morning on BBC Radio 4, it is within the power of the government to set the inquiry free today to do what it has already said it wants to do. It can change the protocol. The inquiry already has all the documents. It could, in theory, start to publish the most important papers straight away. It would be up to the government to tell the inquiry pretty quickly what should be withheld. This would not be a problem for the inquiry, particularly if the reasons for suppression are limited to national security, but would be a nightmare for an establishment that loves secrecy.