Under fire: Sir John Chilcot is accused of lacking a conscience as the clamour for him to publish his long-overdue report into the Iraq War intensified

Sir John Chilcot was last night accused of lacking a conscience as the clamour for him to publish his long-overdue report into the Iraq War intensified.

Julian Lewis, Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, stepped into the row by saying Sir John had failed to give ‘straight answers’ about the reasons for the delays.

He added that ‘anyone with a conscience’ would have ensured the report was published quickly for the sake of bereaved relatives.

That sentiment was echoed by John Miller, whose 21-year-old son Simon was killed near Basra in 2003. He said: ‘What kind of conscience does Chilcot have if he is allowing this to go on endlessly?’

Next week the inquiry will have lasted even longer than the six years and 69 days British troops fought in Iraq.

Families of those killed in the conflict, top brass and politicians last night warned that a convention giving those facing criticism a chance to rebut findings – a process known as Maxwellisation – was being abused. They said it was being manipulated by leading figures who were ‘desperately trying to save their reputation’ at the expense of relatives trying to find out why Tony Blair sent their sons and daughters to fight.

Yesterday the Mail revealed that 29 families had launched an unprecedented legal battle to force Sir John to deliver his report on the controversial 2003 war – which cost 179 British lives – by the end of the year. They have given him a two-week ultimatum to set a date for releasing the report or they will fight him in the courts.

They believe his decision not to set a timetable for publication is unlawful because inquiries should be concluded in a ‘reasonable timeframe’. So far, the inquiry has already taken a ‘morally reprehensible’ six years and cost the taxpayer more than £10million.

Sir John, a 76-year-old retired civil servant, was yesterday faced mounting anger for allowing the inquiry, which has cost £10million, to drag on.

Mr Lewis said: ‘It is a mystery from everyone from the Prime Minister downwards why this inquiry is taking so long to report. Getting to the bottom of the circumstances under which the conflict came to take place gives the families some basis for saying this terrible chapter in their lives has been closed. That should be a major factor for anyone with a conscience to make sure it is published quickly.’

Grieving father Mr Miller also attacked Sir John for ignoring the feelings of the bereaved. He said: ‘It is possibly the biggest inquiry in history and it is becoming the biggest cover-up.

Evidence: Sir John and his committee took oral testimony from more than 150 witnesses, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (pictured)

‘This is tormenting the family. We have never been able to celebrate our son’s life because we have been fighting daily, monthly, yearly, for the truth.’ Major General Patrick Cordingley, a commander during the first Gulf War, blasted the ‘Maxwellisation’ process and said Sir John had let it get out of control.

He said: ‘The people who have lost sons, husbands and daughters want closure.’

HE WON'T NAME THE KEY FIGURES Sir John Chilcot has refused to name those he has sent a letter warning them of criticisms contained in the Iraq report, or even say how many letters were sent. He will say only that no one has received a ‘Maxwellisation’ letter who was not a witness to the inquiry, meaning it could be as many as 150. He suggested he didn’t want to reveal how many people he had written to because it might mean the public could identify them. Jack Straw has confirmed he has received a letter, but denied vociferously that he was responsible for any delay linked to the process. Tony Blair has also denied he is delaying the publication of the report, saying he ‘resents’ the suggestion he is. It is also expected that letters will have been sent to senior civil servants in the run up to war such as Sir John Scarlett, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee. Advertisement

General Sir Michael Rose, a former SAS commander who is backing the families’ fight, said: ‘In applying the Maxwellisation process so zealously Sir John has disproportionately represented the interests of senior politicians, senior civil servants and senior members of the armed forces rather than those of family members who have a clear and vastly superior right to know why and for what their loved ones died.’

If Sir John refuses to set a date for publication, the families will apply for a judicial review on the grounds that the inquiry has breached its own protocols by allowing the Maxwellisation process to run on.

If successful, the families’ campaign could lead to the exposure of highly sensitive paperwork that Whitehall mandarins refused to hand to the Iraq Inquiry. It could also lead to judges ordering Sir John to set a timetable for disclosing the report.

Gordon Brown announced the inquiry in June 2009. Sir John and his committee had to study more than 150,000 documents – many of them top secret – and took oral testimony from more than 150 witnesses, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He initially intended to publish in late-2011.

David Cameron earlier this month told Sir John to name the date when he will deliver his report. Last night an inquiry spokesman said Sir John would not comment on the process of allowing those facing criticism to offer rebuttals, saying it was ‘confidential’. Asked about criticism from the families, the spokesman said Sir John had ‘no comment’.

He's hiding behind right to reply ruse

By Jason Groves, Deputy Political Editor

The bureaucratic process that has led to shocking delays in the release of the Iraq inquiry is not required by law and has been ignored altogether in some major inquiries.

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has blamed the so-called ‘Maxwellisation’ process for delaying the publication of his report.

But critics claim he has gone far beyond what is necessary in giving witnesses including Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and former spy chief Sir John Scarlett the right to rebut criticism in detail before the report is published.

Attack: Grieving families of British troops killed in Iraq have launched an unprecedented legal battle

Legal experts point out that Sir John was not required to carry out the process at all, let alone give people an exhaustive right of reply that effectively allows them to delay the report indefinitely.

Robert Francis, QC, who led the inquiry into the Mid Staffs hospital scandal, simply ignored the process, saying it would have been ‘impracticable and undesirable’ to delay his report further by giving witnesses the chance to challenge his findings in advance.

Lord Justice Leveson, who led the controversial inquiry into Press standards, gave newspapers only six weeks to respond to his sweeping criticisms – and then ignored most of their submissions.

And the former law chief Lord Denning, who established the process of Maxwellisation in the 1970s, said any consultations should be tightly time-limited to ensure it did not ‘hold up (an) inquiry indefinitely’.

Killed: Lance Cpl Thomas Keys (pictured left) and Staff Sgt Sharron Elliott (right). Their relatives, among others, are desperate to learn the truth about why Tony Blair sent their sons and daughters to fight

Killed: Corporal Kris O'Neill (pictured left) and Major Matthew Bacon (right) both died in Iraq

The convention, named after a case involving disgraced newspaper magnate Robert Maxwell, involves notifying individuals who will face criticism and giving them the chance to respond before a report is published.

In the case of the Iraq inquiry, up to 150 individuals are thought to have received the warning letters setting out likely criticism of their conduct in the run-up to the disastrous 2003 war.

The secretive process is understood to have started last autumn and now looks likely to stretch into next year. A spokesman for the Iraq inquiry yesterday said Maxwellisation was a ‘long-established process in inquiries, intended to ensure their conclusions are fair and robust’.

Devoted: Reg Keys, who is demanding answers, with a young Thomas (right) and his other son Richard (left)

But critics say Sir John has gone too far in allowing those criticised to rebut his findings and effectively frustrate their publication.

The practice of providing advance notice of criticism began following a Royal Commission into inquiry practice in 1966 led by the appeal court judge Lord Salmon.

It became more widespread following a case in which the late Robert Maxwell was severely criticised in a report by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1969. But the process of sending so-called ‘Salmon letters’ is not a legal requirement for inquiries of the type run by Sir John.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘I think Chilcot is over-interpreting the importance of the Salmon letters. They were for people to correct egregious factual errors, not to quarrel with the outcome of the report.’

Chilcot’s approach has also exasperated ministers, including David Cameron, who is pressing for a timetable for publication. When the Labour government set up the inquiry in 2009, no deadline was set for it to report.