Hoon 'regrets misunderstanding' over evidence to MPs

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, rejected calls for his resignation yesterday and expressed regret for any "misunderstanding" in his evidence to MPs about the extent of dissent within the MoD over the Government's Iraq dossier.

Mr Hoon faced savage criticism from the Tories and Liberal Democrats over his failure to tell the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) that intelligence officers had formally complained about the dossier.

The ISC said the initial failure of the MoD to reveal details of Defence Intelligence Staff concerns had been "unhelpful and potentially misleading".

Mr Hoon himself had failed to tell the committee that two members of the DIS, including its head of nuclear, chemical and biological assessment, had written to complain about claims in the dossier.

But the Defence Secretary attempted to cling to office by claiming that he had "no intention whatsoever other than to be open and straightforward" with the ISC. "I regret any misunderstanding that might have arisen," he said.

He acknowledged that the MoD "could have been more helpful", but suggested that the criticisms of him were minor, dismissing DIS concerns about the dossier as merely "linguistic".

Mr Hoon also said that the written criticisms of Dr Brian Jones and another DIS officer were part of the "normal healthy debate" about intelligence assessments that informed the dossier.

Dr Jones made clear to the Hutton inquiry that his formal complaint was not part of such normal debate, and that he had never previously been forced to express his unease with a document in his 13 years in intelligence.

Mr Hoon's comments were made as he opened a debate on defence in the UK only hours after the critical report of the ISC was published and calls for his resignation were issued by Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory party leader.

The Defence Secretary, rising to cheers from his own side, insisted that he had not misled the committee and had volunteered to it that there were members of the DIS who had raised concerns.

"I volunteered the information at my first evidence session on 22 July that there were people in defence intelligence who had made proposals for amendments and who indicated that they thought the language in places could be tightened up," he said.

"I outlined the substance of the dispute as to whether the intelligence showed or indicated particular conclusions and how this was resolved before it ever reached the JIC, let alone any minister.

"The disagreement was resolved by the then chief of defence intelligence and his deputy, who concluded that the dossier wording was sound."

Mr Hoon said he recognised that it would have been "helpful to the committee if I had mentioned specifically that the dispute was recorded in writing".

Alan Beith, the Liberal Democrat member of the ISC, pointed out that Mr Hoon had been recalled before the committee only after the Hutton inquiry uncovered the existence of written complaints. Mr Beith revealed that MoD officials, presumed to include Martin Howard, the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, had continued to refuse to give full details of the dissent at the first meeting once Mr Hoon had left the hearing.

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said that it was time for Mr Hoon to "do the honourable thing, accept responsibility and resign".

Mr Jenkin said Mr Hoon was discredited in the eyes of the armed services and could not continue to take charge of them. He had been shown to be "if not malign then at least incompetent", and was being used as a scapegoat to take the flak for "all the Government's sins", he added. "This criticism, a severe criticism, is yet another nail in the coffin of his personal reputation."

For the Liberal Democrats, Paul Keetch said he doubted whether the Government would have won the Commons vote on military action if MPs had been made aware of the JIC's concerns.

"The report shows we did not go to war on the basis of intelligence, but rather on the basis of selective use of intelligence," he said.

"We should have been given all the assessments. The Government needs to explain why it withheld these crucial assessments."