---

3.17 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): With regard to the inquiry on which I shall not serve and my party's decision about its terms of reference, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—"No Trespassers"—is relevant. The Government have fenced off a no man's land in the terms of reference, which lies between the charge of improper conduct, which was rejected by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Hutton report, and the quality of intelligence. The first was covered by Hutton and the second will be covered by the new inquiry, but the no man's land involves Government decision making and the interaction of Ministers with officials from the intelligence services. It involves the extent to which intelligence was selected,

4 Feb 2004 : Column 811

perhaps unconsciously, to find support for a policy that had already been decided. That is a legitimate area for consideration.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way at the moment. I shall keep in mind his wish to intervene, but I want to ensure that I cover two points about the ISC report and one about the BBC.

Paragraph 116 of the ISC report refers to the Defence Intelligence Staff, and I mentioned it in exchanges with the Prime Minister, today and yesterday. The Committee recommended that if individuals in the intelligence community wrote formally to their line managers with concerns about JIC assessments, the concerns should be brought to the attention of the JIC chairman. That recommendation has not been accepted by the Government, who have taken the view that the importance of the authority of line managers might be undermined if it were possible for someone such as Dr. Brian Jones to insist that the chairman of the JIC knew of his reservations about the way in which information was expressed in an assessment or—even worse—in a public dossier. That is why I posed my question to the Prime Minister. There is a tension between the remit of line management and the need to ensure that expert opinion is brought to the fore on matters on which it is necessary. The JIC itself did not have the technical competence to judge on those issues—which the ISC implied in what it said—and did not have before it some of the reservations that had been made.

Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties over matters that the committee that has been set up might not be able to examine. But once the phrase "use of the intelligence" has been introduced to the committee's remit, which we have insisted on, is that not precisely what it will be able to comment on? In those circumstances, I am bound to say how much I regret that the committee will be deprived of the right hon. Gentleman's services, as the wording meets the very point that is causing him anxiety.

Mr. Beith: I am not satisfied with that wording, partly because I have heard the Prime Minister, both yesterday and today, assert how strongly he wishes to protect the field of political judgment. Political judgment is intertwined with decisions being made about intelligence, which is why I believe there is still a no man's land. I hope that the inquiry will trespass into that no man's land, and I am not happy with terms of reference that exclude it.

I turn to the report's points on terrorism. In paragraph 126, the ISC refers to the JIC assessment that

"al-Qaida and associated groups . . . represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

That was one of a number of factors to be considered, but it was not one to which Ministers alluded. The impression that they sought to give was often very different, as they suggested that the greatest threat from terrorism would be from the continuance of the Saddam Hussein regime—evil though it was. The Prime

4 Feb 2004 : Column 812

Minister currently takes refuge in a phrase that refers to the "nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction"—a vague and imprecise concept that I do not remember ever seeing in any intelligence assessment, and which does not address the question of that particular threat—that holder of weapons of mass destruction, that terrorist group, and the possibility of a link between the two. If Members had known more about the available intelligence on the dangers that would arise with regime collapse, they would have wanted to take that into account. I am not saying that it would necessarily have changed their judgment, but that intelligence factor was omitted.

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) (Con): I want to add to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made some moments ago. In turning down our recommendation, the Government gave the impression that the concerns to which he referred should be left to line management, rather than being brought to the attention of the chairman of the JIC. That belies that fact—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that this is right—that only about twice in the past seven to 10 years has an official felt strongly enough to put his reservations about intelligence in writing. That reinforces the point that the JIC chairman should at least be aware of such concerns.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and I am grateful to him for adding to my argument.

I want to refer to the BBC and, like others today, emphasise that the mistakes that its management made, which have been paid for in resignations, should not lead to any undermining of its independence or to the exercise of any leverage in negotiations over the charter or the licence fee. An independent BBC is very important to us.

I shall take the greatest of all possible political risks and comment on the "Today" programme, which plays a significant part in many of our lives. The resignations and top management changes—of heads rather than deputy heads—have perhaps led us to miss a point about the pressures that programmes are currently under in reporting such matters. The "Today" programme has come under pressure, from past editors, I suspect, to concentrate on getting the story first, rather than getting the story right. The frequent use of expressions such as, "This programme has learned," and "The BBC has been told," suggest that the programme is engaged in a ratings war with the newspapers. We look to a programme like that, for which we all have great affection, to get a story right, and we frankly do not care if its story appears later than a story in some newspaper that is speculative and wrong. I am sure that many of those who make the programme are trying to abide by that principle, but they should have it reinforced in the processes that follow the Hutton report.

Another feature that I want to mention is not peculiar to the "Today" programme but applies to news bulletins as well—I believe that that is a factor in some of these problems. It is the interview format adopted when correspondents explain a matter. This used to be done by a correspondent appearing in front of camera and

4 Feb 2004 : Column 813

saying some rather carefully prepared words. Having a journalist interviewed at 7 minutes past 6 in the morning from his home is likely to lead to words not being carefully chosen at all. I do not believe that that was the only factor in the Gilligan error—indeed, the Gilligan falsehood, as Hutton rightly rules it—but presentational pressure to make the statement of a well informed correspondent appear like an interview or a casual conversation between him and the presenter does not contribute to ensuring that the story is right. Those of us who value the BBC highly look to it to get the story right—we do not care whether it gets it first—and presentation is not the most important issue.

Having concluded with those comments, I think I have made sure that I shall not appear on the "Today" programme for quite some time. That will make my mornings more comfortable.

3.26 pm

Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) (Lab): I adopt everything that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said.

Seven days is a long time in politics. A week ago, I criticised the Leader of the Opposition for what I deemed an unworthy response to the Prime Minister. Today, I commend him for his highly constructive contribution to the debate.

Lord Hutton published his report last week. He is a distinguished judge, whose appointment was greeted with acclamation. He is a man of undoubted integrity and independence. The conduct of his inquiry was also praised. I appeared before him for almost two hours, and therefore have some idea of the care that he took. He agonised long over the conclusions that he reached. That was also the general impression conveyed by the press at the time. Lord Hutton was hailed as

"a Judge not afraid to stand up to the Establishment".

He was commended for his "fearless independence", for being

"very much his own man",

and for being "shrewd and astute". One journalist identified in him

"a sharpness of mind and efficiency that stunned witnesses and journalists".

Suddenly, however, when the report was published, Lord Hutton was blamed for his "naiveté", and for his "unbalanced document". The charge of "whitewash" was common currency, even on the front pages of the newspapers. There was widespread disappointment and frustration that Lord Hutton did not take the scalps of any senior politicians, including that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I am delighted to say was wholly absolved by the report.

This tells us much about the state of British democracy. Of course the press is the bulwark of our freedom. Its ability to question, using investigative journalism, is absolutely vital, but this should be coupled with responsibility. There is a danger of the press subverting our democracy by creating a climate of mistrust and malice towards those in public life, cynically hunting in packs for its next victim. There must

4 Feb 2004 : Column 814

surely be a middle way between deference and malicious point scoring, and between questioning scepticism and corroding cynicism.

Lord Hutton clearly interpreted his remit as requiring something broader than an inquest but narrower than an inquiry into the causes of war. In that, he was right. The quality of the intelligence involved must now be investigated. David Kay told the Senate committee last week that we were all wrong. Of course, we learn of intelligence failures—indeed, Libya was another failure in terms of its nuclear capacity—but not of the successes. Some failures might have been due to Saddam Hussein having been deceived by his generals, or having sought to be duplicitous to others. Human intelligence might have been weak, or have relied too much on exiles. There could have been a "group think" among the experts because of the serial liar who was in charge of Iraq. There was of course a failure to record dissent within the security establishment. All these are important questions which the committee needs to address. But I agree with the broad conclusion of Lord Hutton, which of course the leader of the Opposition accepted, too. The BBC was at fault. Ultimately it made a full apology. There was sloppy journalism, and there was no, or insufficient, rigorous questioning along the route.

Is it just old-fashioned of me, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, to say that the BBC's reputation was based on its practice in the past of reporting the news objectively, rather than seeking to make the news—a point made excellently by the editor of the Financial Times in last Saturday's edition?

I should also like to say that Mark Byford is well known to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I believe that he is a good choice in the interim, and hopefully beyond, to manage the BBC.

I hope also that the inquiry will not divert attention from the real challenges of peace in Iraq and of reconstructing that country.

I turn to the role of Select Committees, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned. He addressed the question of access to information, individuals and documents. The Committees of the House have powers to send for persons, papers and records—PPR, in the jargon. In practice, however, the power is unenforceable against Ministers, because of the Government's parliamentary majority.

In the course of our inquiry, the Foreign Affairs Committee reached conclusions that, save in one particular, were accepted by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which had access to all the intelligence that we asked for. We asked for Alastair Campbell to appear before us; we also asked for Scarlett, Omand, Dearlove and others. All this was refused to us, except, at the second time of trying, Alastair Campbell. Yet all gave evidence to an inquiry that lacked any power to compel their attendance.

Similarly, the Foreign Affairs Committee asked for drafts of the weapons of mass destruction dossier and other papers, so that we could look at the route it took step by step. Again, all those papers were denied to a Committee of Parliament, even in confidence, but are now all published for people to read on the Hutton inquiry website. Surely that is wrong. If the House is to

4 Feb 2004 : Column 815

do its job, and its expert Committees are to do their job on behalf of the House and the public, we must be given the tools.

I made the point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday in the Liaison Committee, and I made it to him this morning. I hope that this issue will not go away, and that the House will learn that as one of the key lessons of Hutton. Of course, as parliamentarians we are envious of the access of Hutton's inquiry to witnesses and information. The Government must take Parliament and its Committees more seriously.

As I have said, that is one of the key lessons to be learnt. The other is the light that the human tragedy of a good and distinguished public servant, Dr. Kelly, throws on the current climate of mistrust and cynicism fostered by the press with regard to those in public life, and the presumption that those in public life are at best to be mistrusted and at worst dishonest.

I trust that as a House we shall learn the lessons from this tragic episode and try to move forward in a spirit of greater humility, respect and indeed trust.

---