The Guardian
October 2, 2003
By David LeighA former senior British diplomat today breaks the traditional taboo on discussing MI6 operations to launch a broadside against the intelligence agencies' failures in the wake of the Hutton inquiry.
Writing in the Guardian, Sir Peter Heap, ambassador to Brazil until 1995 and subsequently an adviser to the HSBC investment bank, quotes his own experiences with MI6 which show, he says, why politicians allowed themselves to be misled over Iraq.
"The poor quality of intelligence material ... was far too readily accepted at face value by ministers."
He describes how he once discovered an MI6 officer at one embassy sending back a secret intelligence report which he described as emanating from a "well-placed source". But it was an article lifted from a local newspaper.
Sir Peter's caustic description of MI6's working methods, which included bribing unreliable local informants with large amounts of cash, will embarrass Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, and John Scarlett, the former MI6 officer and head of the joint intelligence committee, responsible respectively for supplying and then endorsing the claims in the now notorious Blair dossier that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Never before has a senior diplomat given such a detailed and scathing public account of MI6's behaviour, normally protected by the Official Secrets Act.
Sir Peter says some MI6 officers pay local informants enough to send their children to British boarding schools. "Those agents, dependent on that money, inevitably had a strong temptation to embellish their reports".
He adds: "The whole process is wrapped around in an unnecessary cloak and aura of secrecy, mystery and danger that prevents those from outside the security services applying normal and rigorous judgments on what they produce. It is difficult to see why, for example, Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of MI6, should have given his evidence to the Hutton inquiry by telephone. Everyone knows his name and what he does."
The JIC, he says, fails to do its job properly. "This, in my judgment, is not a sufficient vehicle for rigorously scrutinising intelligence data. Ministers and parliament need to look harder and much more closely at the security services and their methodology, and then use their information sparingly and selectively."
Sir Peter spent more than 30 years in the diplomatic service, including spells in Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Brazil. He says embassy staff see all the secret so-called "CX" reports that undercover MI6 officers send back to London, but are powerless to veto them, even if they believe them to be wrong or worthless.
"Local MI6 officers ... had an incentive to play up the importance or reliability of their sources on which they based their dispatches. Ambassadors and diplomatic staff saw and commented on their intelligence reports that went to their HQ in London, but could not alter nor stop them, nor know the identity of the sources."
He goes on: "It would make a huge difference in assessing the value of a report from say 'a source close to the president', to know whether that source is the vice-president, or a household servant, or someone with whom the president lunches occasionally."
This attack is aimed directly at Sir Richard and Mr Scarlett, who assured No 10 that their second-hand source for the claim that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes was "an established and reliable line of reporting". The threat was then hardened up under political pressure from Downing Street.
GCHQ, which provides electronic intercepts, is dismissed by Sir Peter as rarely useful. He monitored foreign wars from London and found it impossible to distinguish the flood of inaccurate or misleading intercepts from accurate ones.
The intelligence agencies offered to monitor secret talks he was having with one foreign delegation, he says, when they reported back to their own capital. But the only intercept they produced after weeks of expense was a single paragraph of a draft agreement, which turned out to have been originally drafted by Sir Peter himself.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003