Well, I don't think I'm completely mad, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Our common goal is, I think, to increase public confidence in the Parliamentary system. Depending on where you sit, this may or may not involve increasing confidence in an individual party. I have not given any opinion on what I think of the Hutton report apart from the issue on whether Hoon should have been criticised for one particular stance - and I say criticised, not sacked, demoted or anything else. What I would have wanted that particular criticism to achieve would be to make it clear that ministers responsibility to ensure that their press releases etc are accurate does not stop after the press conference in which they are issued.

For the new inquiry, I think, like the Liberal party (I am not a member!), that too narrow a remit simply means even today people are dismissing it and that is unhealthy. It almost guarantees that when reaches its conclusion there will be yet another outcry. So what can be done to increase the confidence? I've put some ideas forward that you don't like, but that's fair enough. I'm just interested in ways to move forward.

It is quite clear that the Hutton report has not cleared the air. So we should look for some other ideas which might help. I've put a few forward for sandblasting. Perhaps you and MGOH can come up with a few more.

To answer some of your specific points, Teribus: It is by no means rare for committees to produce a report with one or more desenting views. I don't think that is necessarily disasterous. You are entitled to disagree.

How do we establish what issues 'the general populous' thinks are important? I wouldn't use a phone-in myself, but surveys like this are done all the time in industry. I don't rule them out for politics. Its not miles away from what the famous focus groups did.

Should the general public have access to all the internals of the security services? No, but the presumption could have been that everything that could be published should be, and published at the earliest opportunity.


How decides who can be trusted? I freely admit this is hugely difficult. I think the way I would start would be by excluding those with a clear vested interest and then using some variation of allowing candidates to be challenged, rather like American jury membership now. Again, this is just an idea and you may have a better one.

I agree in the new inquiry all parties (except the Liberals) will be represented. Much as a hate to say that this one's a matter of presentation, I think it is. Had the announcement been on the lines of 'We have reserved X places for each party and ask each Party leader to provide its nominees to these places' it would make it more explicit that the Government was distancing itself from the appointment system. I fully admit that that is probably exactly what went on behind closed doors anyway. Its the "justice being seen to be done", not the "justice being done" part of the slogan.

Its exactly the same reason that I suggest the commitee appoints its own chairman (from within themselves, I should have said). Make it as explicit as you possibly can that the government is not manipulating things.


As this part of the thread has moved a long way from Dr Kelly, I don't intend to respond further here, but if anyone wants to start a fresh thread on 'How can we improve UK inquiries' I will happily resume there.