---

Intelligence and Security Committee

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The point is that when the Committee reported to Parliament last year, it—not me—complained that it had not seen the document. Is it unreasonable for us to think that the Committee would explain in this year's report that it has received Sir David's report, or at least to allude to his conclusions and findings? I rest my case on that. Page 21 of our colleagues' report states:""The loss of Secret Intelligence…data and its subsequent appearance on eBay represents a clear breach of data security procedures, combined with a lack of adequate guidance and enforcement. Although this happened some years ago, the Committee is nonetheless disappointed"—" that is an understatement—""that data was not being handled securely."" There is a catalogue of mishandling and incompetence by individuals in the security and intelligence services, and we use adjectives such as "disappointed"! I am told time and again, particularly in answer to parliamentary questions, that we do not discuss security matters. I actually understand that, but there seems to be a cavalier, lackadaisical attitude in some parts of our security and intelligence services, and the Committee that is supposed to have oversight says it is "disappointed". I find that amazing and breathtaking. A number of colleagues have referred to Diego Garcia. Page 41 of the report states:""While the then Prime Minister's specific assurances to this Committee in relation to Diego Garcia—"