retrospective inquiries

Holding ministers to account

Published:

A LOT of water has passed under the bridge since Tony Blair found himself caught up in his first so-called sleaze scandal over the Formula One tobacco-advertising row.

Yet, more than 10 years later, people are still asking questions about what really happened, and whether Mr Blair exerted an improper influence on decision-making. Some might ask what is the point of such retrospective inquiries; after all, it is over and done with and the leading players have often moved on to other things.

The real point is that it is all about ministers being straight with the public and held to account over their actions if not. Mr Blair subsequently told us he was “a pretty straight kind of guy”, but nobody could tell where the spin stopped or started. The same principle applies to the invasion of Iraq and the so-called dodgy dossier on which Mr Blair pinned all his hopes of persuading parliament and the British public to back him.

There are enough unanswered questions about that period just before the invasion to fill another dossier. Memories might be fading over this episode and much has changed in Iraq since then, but the right to ask awkward questions must be encouraged in the interests of good government.