MI6 chief briefed BBC over Iraq arms fears
'There couldn't be a more serious charge, that I ordered our troops into conflict on the basis of intelligence evidence that I falsified. --UK PM Tony Blair (guilty!)
observer.guardian.co.uk
Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday July 6, 2003
The Observer
The head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, secretly briefed senior BBC executives on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the Today programme claimed Number 10 had 'sexed up' part of the evidence.
In a remarkable revelation that goes to the heart of the increasingly bitter row between the Government and the BBC, broadcasting sources have told The Observer that Dearlove suggested that Syria and Iran posed a greater threat to world security than Iraq.
Although the MI6 chief was not the source of BBC allegations that 10 Downing Street deliberately exaggerated the claim that Saddam's weapons could be ready in 45 minutes, the meetings have strengthened resolve within the corporation to refuse Government demands that it should apologise.
Greg Dyke, the Director General of the BBC, will give a robust defence of the story and say that many of the allegations have been proved true.
This move will put him in direct conflict with Tony Blair, who dramatically upped the stakes last night by demanding a full retraction of the allegations about weapons of mass destruction, saying the charge against him was the gravest he had ever faced as Prime Minister.
In an exclusive interview with The Observer, Blair said the story was 'about as serious an attack on my integrity as there could possibly be'.
Tonight the BBC governors meet in emergency session to discuss the corporation's response to the row. The briefings by Dearlove will make up part of the evidence presented by Dyke and Richard Sambrook, BBC Director of News, to the governors.
The two men, who have both been told of the contacts between Dearlove and BBC executives, will say these provided the 'background context' to the story first run by the Today programme's defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan.
One meeting, over lunch, was attended by Dearlove, Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme, and John Humphrys, its leading presenter.
At another meeting with a senior BBC executive, sources said Dearlove made it clear that Iraq was not viewed by the intelligence services as the primary threat.
A minute taken of the meeting, on which The Observer has been briefed, Dearlove was asked about the greatest threats to world security. He said that on an analysis of the danger from weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Iraq was not the priority.
Asked whether Iran and Syria posed a greater threat, Dearlove 'appeared to assent'.
When Humphrys interviewed John Reid, the former Leader of the House of Commons recently promoted to Health Secretary, the presenter said he had met 'senior' figures in the intelligence services. Reid had said the claims made by the programme were those of 'rogue elements' in the security services. This claim was dismissed by the BBC.
'Well, let me tell you,' Humphrys said. 'I myself have spoken to senior people in the intelligence services who have said things, that the Government have exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.'
Blair refused to call for an apology from the BBC, but Number 10 officials made it clear that as soon the Foreign Affairs Committee publishes its report on the issue tomorrow, they will demand a retraction.
Although the committee is thought to have cleared Campbell unanimously over the 45-minutes claim, it was split over whether there had been attempts to strengthen the dossier.
It is believed the decision to clear Campbell was made only on the casting vote of the chairman, the Labour MP Donald Anderson.
'It is untrue. That statement is untrue,' Blair said of the claim that the original weapons dossier published last September had been deliberately interfered with against the wishes of the intelligence services.
'The idea that I or anyone else in my position would start altering intelligence evidence or saying to the intelligence services "I am going to insert this" is absurd.
'There couldn't be a more serious charge, that I ordered our troops into conflict on the basis of intelligence evidence that I falsified.
'You could not make a more serious charge against a Prime Minister. The charge happens to be wrong. I think everyone now accepts that that charge is wrong.'
But last night the BBC was still sticking by its story. Senior figures told The Observer they had a 'powerful case' for the governors.
Blair said: 'I am astonished if they are still saying it is accurate. On what basis are they saying that?'
'Whether they had a source or not, only they know. The issue surely is this, that if people make a claim and it turns out to be wrong, they should accept it is wrong.
'I take it as about as serious an attack on my integrity there could possibly be, and the charge is untrue and I hope that they will accept that. I think they should accept it.
'The only reason this issue has taken a long time is because the BBC still says, well I am sorry but you know even though we can't tell you who this source is, and it is perfectly obvious he wasn't even a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), nonetheless we are sticking by the story.'
The BBC will present a report to the governors outlining why they took the decision to run the story.
They will say the evidence on the 45-minutes claim was added to the September dossier 'at a late stage'.
It will add that Campbell asked for 11 changes to the dossier, some of which sought to strengthen it.
Campbell says that although he made some drafting suggestions, nothing was put in the first dossier that was not agreed by the JIC, a body made up of leading members of the intelligence service and civil servants.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said the disclosure about Dearlove raised new questions. 'This fresh information only serves to underline the need for a much wider inquiry under the direction of a senior judge,' he said.
'The Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee will doubtless have done their best but only complete disclosure will get to the bottom of this matter and be enough to satisfy the public interest.
'Britain went to war in circumstances of great controversy. Right at the heart of the matter is whether the evidence was sufficient in quality and quantity to justify the risks, casualties, and long- term consequences of going to war.
'There is an emerging suspicion that the intelligence was used in an effort to provide a justification for a political decision that had already been taken. Sir Richard Dearlove would clearly be a crucial witness in the kind of independent inquiry now necessary.' |
