Iraq inquiry chairman grilled by MPs over report delay

It’s the first time Sir John Chilcot has been publicly questioned about his work on the report since its inception in 2009.

MPs have said he must set out the reasons for the delays, but Chilcot insists he will not remark on the substance of the report, nor give any indication of a publication date.

The inquiry is reportedly still undergoing negotiations with Whitehall about how much of the sensitive material in classified documents can be made public.

Chris Ames, editor of the Iraq Inquiry Digest, said negotiations are likely to continue until “the inquiry’s report is finalized.”

READ MORE: ‘Laughing stock of the world’: MPs debate Iraq Inquiry delay

Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood told MPs last September the Cabinet Office has had to process “tens of thousands of requests for declassification of very complicated and sensitive documents.”

In January, Chilcot said there was no “realistic prospect” of the report being released before the general election; an announcement which was met with anger from MPs and the public, who say the report must be published immediately.

The inquiry last took evidence in 2011 and is expected to be over a million words long.

The cross-party committee examining Chilcot on Wednesday is led by Sir Richard Ottaway, who has said it will focus on “the preparation of his report” and the “obstacles which remain before he can submit it to the prime minister.”

“This is an opportunity for Sir John Chilcot to set out the reasons for the delay,” he told Radio 4's Today program.

READ MORE: Blair: 'Don't blame me for Iraq inquiry delays'

“We want him to have a look at the overall timeframe he has been operating under or not been operating under. We want to pose some questions to him about the evidence and the publication of evidence.”

Chilcot has said he will be “constrained” and will not refer to the inquiry’s ultimate findings. He will also avoid naming a date for its publication or refer to sensitive documents.

In January he offered some indications for the delay.

“To ensure that the conclusions we reach are well-founded it is essential that our approach should be rigorous and comprehensive,” he said.

“We are conscious of our responsibility – to the public and to all those whose lives have been deeply affected by the events we are examining – to discharge our duty thoroughly, impartially and fairly.”