So much for the interrogation: Spy chiefs knew what questions were going to be asked BEFORE parliamentary committee

Sunday Times reveals MPs agreed questions with MI5, MI6 and GCHQ



Historic public hearing was televised but criticised for not giving answers



Spy bosses were summoned after leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden



The bosses of Britain's three spy agencies who were supposedly 'grilled' by MPs agreed questions with them in advance, it has emerged.

The revelation has led one Tory MP to dub the hearings two weeks ago 'a total pantomime'.

MPs summoned the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to an historic public session of the secretive intelligence and security committee to discuss leaks by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

MI5's Andrew Parker, MI6's John Sawers and GCHQ's Iain Lobban before the committee on November 7, where they discussed leaks by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. They were fed questions in advance

The committee is usually held in private and the hearing, which was televised and an hour and a half long, was trumped as heralding a new era of transparency.

But sources told the Sunday Times there was a row between the committee's nine members, who are all senior MPs and Lords, after they were told the chiefs would only appear on the condition that they were told questions beforehand.

HAND-PICKED AND SECRETIVE: THE COMMITTEE THAT GRILLS SPIES

The row focuses on the secretive intelligence and security committee, which evades the rules that apply to most parts of government. Its nine members are nominated by the Prime Minister and serving government ministers are not allowed to be members. Members see highly classified material, hold most of their sessions in private and must sign the Official Secrets Act.

It also has greater powers than normal government committees and can summon official advice to ministers or evidence from previous governments.

The current members include former Labour cabinet member Hazel Blears, former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell and its chairman, former Conservative foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind (pictured above).



It raises fears over whether the MPs had no choice but to follow a softer line of questioning instead of holding the spy chiefs to account.



Committee chairman Sir Malcolm Rifkind told the Sunday Times: 'We gave them the initial questions... We cannot suddenly put a question to an intelligence chief that they might only be able to answer by reference to secret material.'

MI5's Andrew Parker, MI6's John Sawers and GCHQ's Iain Lobban appeared before the committee on November 7 after high-profile leaks by the whistleblower Edward Snowden were published in the Guardian newspaper.

He released files detailing how the U.S. National Security Agency, with the help of British counterparts, routinely collate e-mails from ordinary people and tapped the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel.



In his first public speech since April, Mr Parker condemned the leaks and said they were 'the gift [terrorists] need to evade us and strike at will.'

He added: 'Unfashionable as it might seem, that is why we must keep secrets secret, and why not doing so causes such harm.'

Sir John Sawers also told the hearing: 'I am not sure that the journalists who are managing this very sensitive information are particularly well placed, actually, to make judgments [about its dangerousness].

'What I can tell you is that the leaks from Snowden have been very damaging. They have put our operations at risk. It is clear that our adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee. Al-Qaeda is lapping it up.'

GCHQ, whose headquarters in Cheltenham are pictured, has been in the news over eavesdropping claims

Before the hearing, however, chiefs agreed to devote only a third of the allotted time to Edward Snowden, the Sunday Times reported, and agreed the line of questioning in advance.

There were criticisms after the hearing that it had not given any real answers and that the spy chiefs had simply refused to answer several questions - citing security concerns.



Professor Anthony Glees, director for the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at Buckingham University, told the newspaper: 'Stage-managing is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, everybody applauding themselves. That is not the impression they should be giving. They should not be about mutual self-congratulation. It should be about holding people to account.'

An anonymous Tory MP also told the newspaper: 'Evidently the whole thing was a total pantomime'.