U.K. 'deliberately' chose not to probe Russian interference in Brexit: former intelligence chair

A report by Britain's intelligence and security committee found no evidence of Russian interference during Brexit — but the former chair of that committee says that's no surprise because the government "actively avoided" looking for it.

The long-awaited report into Russian activity in the U.K. was released Tuesday. It criticized the British government and its intelligence agencies for neglecting to investigate whether the Russian government interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum, describing its lack of curiosity about the threats to democracy as being a major failure at the heart of power.

According to the report, which was shelved for months, the government "actively avoided looking for that evidence that Russia interfered" because "they did not want to know."

Speaking before the report was released, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia "never interfered in electoral processes, "not in the United States, not in Britain, not in any other country."

Former Conservative MP Dominic Grieve was chair of the intelligence and security committee last fall. Here is part of his conversation with As It Happens guest host Duncan McCue.

You were pushing for this report to be released before last year's election. So how does it feel now that it's finally out?

I'm very pleased it's come out. Obviously, I'm concerned about the fact there was a nine-month delay in bringing it out, and [it] was without any justification at all.

It does mean we're nine months late in terms of doing things about it. But at least we can now, I hope, build on what the report says.

What does this report say about the British government's reluctance to even consider a threat posed by Russian interference in British politics?

In fairness to the U.K. government, I think it does accept that there is a threat from Russia in a multitude of ways, from espionage, from the willingness to murder people on U.K. soil, to subverting democratic processes. I think it accepts all those things.

But certainly in the subversion of democratic processes, it has shown a complete reluctance to look back at previous democratic events like the 2016 referendum, to examine the extent to which there may have been attempts by Russia to influence the outcome.

The report is quite clear. It says that the government "actively avoided" looking for evidence that Russia interfered. Is active avoidance tantamount to willful blindness?

I think it's very tantamount to willful blindness. Clearly, there was a lot of talk about this issue and, therefore, it would have been perfectly appropriate for the government to say, "Well, just for future, we ought to see what's happened in this particular event." And I think they quite deliberately chose not to look at it.

Why not look at that issue, particularly with regard to the Brexit referendum?

I can't answer that question. My view is it was worth doing, not because it would suddenly cast doubt on the outcome of the referendum.

I want to emphasize this, because the one thing you're never going to be able to quantify, even if there was interference, is how the interference would have impacted on people. Even if they interfered a lot or tried to interfere, it might have had minimal impact. So I don't think that one can make a judgment about that.

But I certainly think that it is worth having an understanding of what they have been doing, because we know they've interfered in the United States. We know they've interfered in the French presidential elections. We know now that they sought to an extent to interfere in the U.K. general election in 2019. The government itself has told us this.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been dodging questions about this report today — why his government has sat on it since October. He has said that he's taken action against Russia, including expelling over 150 Russian diplomats. Why do you think this report didn't come out earlier?

I don't know why it was not published earlier. Clearly, it was due to be published at the very end of the last Parliament, just before Parliament dissolved for the general election. But that's not a reason why it shouldn't be published.

And if he had had a valid reason for not publishing it, then he should have called me into his office — because I was then the chair of the intelligence and security committee — and given me a good reason. And it cannot be a party political reason. It has to be some wider public interest reason. And he's never provided it.

It could range from worrying that there would be a discussion about the content and that at the start of the 2019 general election campaign, they didn't want that. If that was their motive, then they behaved in a thoroughly wrong fashion, because that's not their business.

That's one thing. The second one is that, because at the time I was standing as an independent MP and not a Conservative, having broken with the prime minister, it was a fit of political pique against me. But that [would be] a very shallow reason for not allowing the report to be published.

And in truth, I would be misleading you if I said that I knew what exactly it was. You'd have to ask him.

The intelligence and security committee has called for a full assessment by intelligence agencies into the potential for Russian meddling in the 2016 referendum. What action would you like to see this government take?

I would like to see the government give an indication that it will carry out such a review. It can be done retrospectively. The material is almost certainly there … and can be reviewed by our security services.

After all, it's exactly what happened in the United States after the 2016 presidential election. And it led to some very controversial, but nevertheless very important, conclusions. And so it would add to our armoury of information to have that done.

Apart from that, looking ahead, there is a whole series of measures which needs to be taken. Fortunately, I think the government is responding positively to our suggestions.

Russian's foreign minister has dismissed the report and calls it "Russophobia."

I'm afraid I disagree with his assertion. I think the evidence is absolutely clear that Russia is an extremely aggressive state when it comes to trying to assert itself on the international stage, and it is willing to do it by unlawful means — including, as I say, at the worst, committing murder in other people's sovereign territory.

This is now so well-established and proven track record, I don't think anybody apart from the Russian ambassador doesn't take the view that it happens.

Written by Jonathan Ore. Interview produced by Morgan Passi. Q&A edited for length and clarity.