THE PUBLIC INTEREST ?..

The above illustration is a copy of page 73 of the 93 pages of `evidence` given in private to the Chilcot Inquiry by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the foreign intelligence service.   These pages have been released to the public but not before some enthusiastic `redacting,` formerly known as censorship.

Now this might be something of an extreme example, but it doesn`t help the cause of the new age of alleged open transparency that the long awaited report of the Chilcot Inquiry will not now appear until well into next year, because `officials` are refusing to allow private messages between Blair and Bush to be published.  (Note the reference to unelected `officials.`)

To be fair to the Iraq Inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, it is he who is complaining that his ability to publish the report is being undermined by the refusal of Whitehall officials.   Sir John wants to be able to release intelligence papers, private letters between former President George W Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair and to show details of deliberations in Cabinet and the degree to which ministers were kept in the dark about the case for going to war.

The Cabinet Office officials, led by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, have argued that publication of the private letters would compromise candour between future leaders, whilst former Cabinet Secretary Lord O`Donnell told the Chilcot Inquiry that the release of   Blair`s notes would damage relations with the USA and `would not be in the public interest.`

And so the wait goes on and the longer it does the more the suspicions grow that too many people have too much to hide.  And worryingly it seems that it is the officials rather than elected representatives who are not only blocking progress but also deciding what constitutes `the public interest.`  So I`m drawn to two conclusions.

The first is that if publication of likely embarrassing correspondence might damage relations with the US, then so what?   The second is that there are times when it might well be right to publish and be damned, although it is becoming increasingly clear that it won`t be Sir John Chilcot and his chums who are damned but those who seek to hide the truth, delay the publication of the report and hide behind lame duck excuses.

When the report is finally published, I hope `the public` will find it of `interest` for it is us humble taxpayers who foot the huge bills for the Iraq War, the seemingly unending Inquiry and, of course, the `officials` who seem bent on telling us what`s good for us and what`s not.   Welcome to the alleged new age of open transparency!