Three reasons to question Cameron’s torture inquiry

The Prime Minister has had several claps on the back this morning for confirming that there is to be an unprecedented inquiry into allegations of Britain's complicity in the torture of suspected terrorists.

As we've all been assured countless times, there is no suggestion that our own agents at MI5 and MI6 have been engaged in torture. But there has been plenty of apparently solid evidence that they received and used intelligence gathered as a result of torture abroad - and that, however much they may protest otherwise, they knew damn well this was so.

There are also strong allegations that British agents have become dangerously tied up with their opposite numbers in the CIA in the use of 'extraordinary rendition', under which terrorist suspects have been flown for interrogation to Pakistan, sometimes Morocco, where torture is seen as an everyday solution to extracting information - never mind the fact that intelligence obtained this way is notoriously suspect.

Anyway, Cameron promised when he was Leader of the Opposition that he would call for an inquiry into the possible complicity of British agents in torture and, true to his word - not something one can always say in reference to promises made in opposition - he has delivered.

Tom Porteous, London director of Human Rights Watch, said: "The PM's announcement of an inquiry is an excellent first step towards re-establishing the UK's credentials as a rights-respecting nation."

And as Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Mail, correctly points out, Cameron made his decision against the advice of the intelligence services who, not surprisingly, have been trying to persuade him and William Hague to drop the idea ever since they've been in power. "It is immeasurably to the Prime Minister's credit that he has stood firm," says Oborne.

So, excellent news, then. Or is it?

There's one big question mark and it hangs directly over the heads of the two men and one woman who make up Cameron's tribunal.

Sir Peter Gibson will lead the inquiry. Not only is he a little too close for comfort to the world of espionage, having been Commissioner of the Intelligence Services since 2006, he is also a retired judge. And, with all due respect, some of his fellow judges have let us down hopelessly in similar circumstances. Lord Hutton hardly painted himself with glory investigating the death of David Kelly, and as for Lord Saville, we now know that his Bloody Sunday inquiry was worse than useless.

Gibson will be flanked by Peter Riddell and Dame Janet Paraskeva.

Riddell is a perfectly respectable former political commentator for the Times, whose departure was announced last month in a wave of voluntary redundancies at the loss-making paper. It's nice to know he's found alternative employment so soon, but political commentators - the Mole should know - are rarely recognised for their forensic minds.

Paraskeva is a serial Quango frontwoman who, among other things, is responsible for handing out Lottery billions to Olympic causes. She's also connected with ChildLine, Ofsted and the British Youth Council. These are doubtless worthy causes, but do they qualify her for this inquiry?

In short, are they the trio to ask searching questions of Sir John Scarlett, for instance, former director of MI6 at a time when the worst abuses are alleged to have occurred - but who said categorically last year that "there is no complicity in torture" in the secret service. And what of the agents themselves? An inquiry without the toughest examination of working agents'
evidence would be pointless.

We already know that former Labour ministers will not be compelled to testify. But, assuming the policy of complicity goes to the top of the agencies and beyond, to their political masters, will our trio be able to name and shame the Labour ministers who authorised it?

The Mole will give all three the benefit of the doubt for the moment. But it would be a tragedy if Cameron's bold stroke - which promises to root out shameful practice in our intelligence services before it becomes entrenched - were to go pear-shaped. ·