[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Spy committee will investigate Blair and the truth about WMDs
CATHERINE MacLEOD and DEBORAH SUMMERS
The Herald, 4 June 2003

TONY Blair will today try to halt the controversy over his role in taking
Britain to war with Iraq by announcing a special investigation by
Westminster's intelligence and security committee. Its findings are expected
to be published in full, in a break with normal practice.

The committee has powers to question the senior intelligence officials whose
briefings to the prime minister have become central to the row over
allegations that the government distorted evidence on weapons of mass
destruction in the run-up to the war.

Normally, when the committee's findings are published, they are heavily
censored and vetted by Downing Street before publication in the interests of
national security, ap-pearing with entire sections replaced by asterisks.

However, last night sources close to the prime minister suggested that he is
prepared to break with protocol and argue strongly in favour of the
committee's report being published in full, whatever the wishes of the
intelligence services.

The committee, whose hearings are usually in private, will be able to
interview any of the parties involved, and the prime minister has let it be
known that he will co-operate fully.

Mr Blair was described by a senior Downing Street insider as "frustrated and
fed up" at the barrage of criticism by Labour back benchers and political
opponents, but is still resisting a independent inquiry. However, he
believes the committee move will help bring closure to the controversy.

Facing a torrid prime minister's question time today, Mr Blair learned last
night that the Commons foreign affairs committee also plans to hold an
inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq. Its powers to compel
witnesses, though, are limited compared to the intelligence and security
committee, which includes six Labour politicians, one of whom is Gavin
Strang, the Scottish MP and former minister, who opposed the war.

In America, a congressional inquiry into the possible abuse of intelligence
information on WMD has been launched.

Mr Blair's critics suggested an inquiry by the ISC committee falls short of
what is needed. Charles Kennedy, the LibDem leader, said "this committee is
answerable to the prime minister. What the public and parliament deserve is
an independent inquiry to look as openly as possible into the way the
government dealt with the intelligence information it received in the run-up
to the Iraq conflict."

Kenneth Clarke, the former Tory chancellor who voted against the war, and
questioned its timing, said he did not think the ISC was the right body to
conduct an inquiry.

Michael Portillo, the former Conservative defence secretary, added his voice
to calls for a public inquiry, but the Tory leadership, which is allegedly
split over tactics, stopped short of this, demanding instead that the prime
minister make an emergency statement to the Commons.

In a letter to Mr Blair, Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, remained
supportive of the government's decision to commit British forces, but
insisted he needed to answer "questions which go to the heart of government
and of the security and intelligence authorities which require urgent and
detailed answers".

Lord Healey, a former Labour defence secretary, joined the clamour for an
inquiry. On the BBC's World At One, he said: "I think a lot of damage has
been done because if intelligence services believe their information is
being deliberately distorted by the government, relations between them are
bound to be very bad indeed."

Robin Cook, former leader of the Commons who resigned from the government
over the war, asked: "How much evidence does Tony Blair actually want? He
said that there were weapons that could be used in 45 minutes. There are no
such weapons."

The prime minister is expected to face a hostile reception at prime
minister's questions, and during his later statement on the G8 summit in
Evian.

Jack Straw, foreign secretary, was flying back early from a meeting of
foreign ministers in Madrid to open today's LibDem-led debate on Iraq.
Patricia Hewitt, trade secretary, confirmed that every member of the cabinet
had been briefed in person by the security services on the threat posed by
Iraqi WMDs.

-----

'Will the full report on WMDs be published this time?'
DEBORAH SUMMERS
The Herald, 4 June 2003

THEY are almost as mysterious as the masons. Members of Westminster's
intelligence and security committee are not listed in any Westminster
directory, meet in secret, and much of their output is normally heavily
censored.

Their remit is to look at the "work, resources, expenditure, and policy" of
the three intelligence agencies - MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. But the published
findings often make uninspiring reading, littered as they are with asterisks
in the place of sensitive information.

The committee's annual report for 1999-2000, for example, which is available
on the internet, discusses such mundane matters as recruitment levels and
staff surveys.

It also refers to what appears to be more interesting material under
sections relating to the importance of the accuracy of weapons in conflicts
such as Kosovo. The report's authors tantalise with references to "target
acquisition" and "modern precision weapons".

However, in section 26, which begins to sound interesting when the first
paragraph refers to a committee visit to intelligence agencies in the United
States, the author then leaves much to the imagination, with the most of the
rest of the section consisting of asterisks.

Section 50 is particularly illuminating - 10 paragraphs of: "***".

The committee, chaired by Labour's Ann Taylor (MP for Dewsbury), was
established in 1994 as a result of the intelligence services act. Its nine
members now meet in private, at secret locations, at least once a week.

Unlike parliamentary select committees, it reports directly to the prime
minister through annual reports, or with inquiries into "special topics"
like the Bali bombing, and the six suitcases of documents owned by Victor
Mitrokin, the ex-KGB archivist, who defected to Britain in 1992.

Membership of the committee is decided by the chairman, who is appointed by
the prime minister in consultation with the leader of the opposition.

Those on the committee are required to be members of parliament and must
sign the official secrets act. Their term of office is generally the
duration of the parliament.

In addition to Mrs Taylor, there are five other Labour members: Gavin Strang
(Edinburgh East and Musselburgh), Lord (Peter) Archer of Sandwell, Joyce
Quin (Gateshead East and Washington West), Alan Howarth (Newport East), and
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley).

There are also two Conservatives: Michael Mates (Hampshire East) and James
Arbuthnot (Hampshire North East), and one Liberal Democrat: Alan Beith
(Berwick-upon-Tweed).

The exact format of their report on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and
Tony Blair's case for war, and how it is presented, has still to be
announced. Last night, reports suggested that it would be published without
the normal high asterisk quotient.

Mr Blair apparently feels that his decision to ask the committee to
investigate will strike a compromise, by opening intelligence reports to
scrutiny, without necessarily jeopardising sensitive information.

However, those demanding a public inquiry into the case for war will
doubtless feel the committee's long-standing links with Downing Street call
its independence into question.

Mr Strang would not comment on reports of an imminent committee inquiry.
However, speaking as an individual MP, Mr Strang, who was opposed to the war
in Iraq, said: "I can understand those who voted for the war but feel the
case for weapons of mass destruction was over-egged.

"As far as I'm concerned, even if some chemical weapons were to be found,
this would not in any way justify the invasion of Iraq. Lots of countries
have chemical weapons."

In contrast to the cloak-and-dagger culture in Britain, the US has a much
more transparent approach. Two senate committees are to hold a joint public
inquiry later this month into how the intelligence on Baghdad's alleged
banned arms programme was gathered, assessed, and presented to the public.

John Warner, a Republican senator and chairman of the senate's armed
services committee, said yesterday: "People are challenging the credibility
of the use of this intelligence, and particularly its use by the president,
the secretaries of state and defence, the CIA director, and others."

The investigation would examine how the information was passed on to policy
makers "who then extrapolated what they wanted and put the emphasis on
certain parts", he said. Some of George Bush's top officials, including
Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Colin Powell, secretary of state, George
Tenet, CIA director, are expected to face questions.

It will be high profile, not least because the armed services committee's
membership include such eminent Democratic figures as Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Republican John McCain.

Mr Warner said he wanted the administration to have time to exhaust its
search for banned weapons, but the inquiry was needed because of "the depth
and seriousness of this issue".

The CIA has already started an internal investigation of its pre-war
intelligence following claims that the Bush administration overstated the
risk posed by Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.

US forces in Iraq have so far found no conclusive evidence of banned arms in
Iraq. Two mobile laboratories which could be used to produce biological
weapons have been found, but they contained no trace of the deadly germs.

The Bush administration's claim that Iraq had illegal weapons was the basis
for a congressional vote approving the use of force to topple Saddam.

Mr Warner said Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Tenet said "unequivocally" at a hearing in
February that evidence of banned weapons programmes would be found after the
war.

A White House spokeswoman said the administration is co-operating with
congressional inquiries.

What the committees do
US Congress Armed Services Committee.

Last month it approved funding for a new generation of small tactical
nuclear weapons, despite the warnings of arms control experts.

In June 2001, it considered whether to allow the closure of a number of
domestic military bases.

In October 1999, it scrutinised the Clinton administration's landmark treaty
on banning nuclear tests around the world.

Intelligence and Security Committee

On May 31, David Blunkett indicated that the committee would examine
Britain's readiness for a terrorist attack.

In October 2002, Jack Straw asked it to look into how the intelligence
services had acted before the bombing of Bali.

In 1992, it chastised MI5 for deciding not to prosecute Melita Norwood after
she was identified as one of Moscow's top agents in the UK.