Question: Have you been surprised by the continuing row over Iraq?

Andrew MacKinlay: I said when we put the report out that it's really like a committal hearing rather than a trial: that it was the end not the beginning. In a way it was prophetic of me because I didn't know we were going to have the name of the BBC source revealed.

Question: There was some criticism that the committee acted on party lines. What's your response?

Andrew MacKinlay: When you go into select committee you act in a semi-judicial way. You should apply yourself without fear or favour, without showing partial affection.

Question: A key issue for you seems to be the relationship between MPs and the security services. What's the problem as you see it?

Andrew MacKinlay: There is no parliamentary oversight. It's a serious flaw in our processes. Most democracies pride themselves at having independent committees overseeing their intelligence services. We don't have it.

Question: The government argues the security and intelligence committee is independent. What's your response?

Andrew MacKinlay: I think it's a nonsense committee in many respects. We need parliamentary scrutiny rather than a committee appointed by the prime minister. It meets behind closed doors and it's so secretive it can't even say when it meets. When they meet it's in secret and they go off in a white van.

In their last report, if you look in the glossary of terms it says 'the CIA means Central Intelligence Agency' and then further down it's got dot, dot, dot means dot, dot, dot. That's just not acceptable to me. It's just absurd. In the USA the culture is quite different.

Question: Has this row exposed the cracks?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, and it continues to do so. My colleagues on the security and intelligence committee are extremely diligent people and I have every reason to believe they are working extraordinarily hard.

It's a great pity for them that when their report is produced it will not be acceptable to you and I because it hasn't been done in a way that's right.

Question: How committed do you think the government is committed to open government?

Andrew MacKinlay: Good question. This is the test as it were. When they finally agreed that Campbell should appear I said I wouldn't knock them for stalling but applaud them for responding.

It is a matter of fact that at first they said no but I think Number 10 felt it was better Campbell appeared rather than didn't appear.

If they were to be relaxed about things it actually would be to their credit more and actually make for good governance. It would reinforce their radical, democratic credentials which do need promoting.

I think governments generally are arrogant. They try and resist the inevitable because eventually theses things do come out. It would be much better for them to tell parliament the way it is in public session.

Question: Whitehall sources including intelligence chiefs are briefing the media over Iraq. What do you think of that?

Andrew MacKinlay: This is a secondary issue to the Iraq questions but its important to me. These people who talk to journalists - there's no harm in that - they won't talk to MPs and that's a constitutional issue in my view.

I have raised this whole issue of who's authorised to speak, how, when, where and on what terms. There should be proper, accountable, accredited people to talk.

The MI6 man says he has had a meeting with John Humphreys. Why can he have a meeting with him but not our committee?

Question: Why do you attach importance to this?

Andrew MacKinlay: I refer to myself as an anorak but this is an important issue about accountability.

You have to ask what parliament is for. We're held in relatively low esteem and there's great cynicism. One of the contributory reasons is the fact that parliament is seen as a rubber stamp and it doesn't matter which government is in office, the legislation gets through.

There's a historic role of parliament scrutinising the executive and that's something I want to expand.

Question: Do you have concerns over what the security services do?

Andrew MacKinlay: We don't know what they're doing - that's the point.

Question: Do you think the legislation governing the security services should be overhauled?

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolutely. I've called for this for a long time. The Official Secrets Act needs to be repealed and a new act created that's more appropriate to EU human rights legislation.

The current rules date back to the Kaiser - that's long before September 11.