The full text of defence secretary Geoff Hoon's comments in the Commons regarding the intelligence and security committee report.

"The ISC report is a measured and detailed one. It finds clearly, firstly that there was no attempt by anyone in government, whether in Downing Street, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office or elsewhere to 'sex up' the dossier published on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in September of last year.

Second, that the dossier was a fair and accurate summary of the intelligence.

And thirdly, that in respect of the so-called '45 minute' claim, no one in government interfered with the intelligence assessment, though the committee finds that the Joint Intelligence Committee could have put the wording of that particular piece of intelligence in a more precise and more detailed way.

I appreciate that the ISC were concerned about the initial approach of the Ministry of Defence. I want to make quite clear that I had no intention whatsoever of being other than open and straightforward with the committee and I regret any misunderstanding that might have arisen.

As far as my own position is concerned, the committee state fairly that I did inform them of the dispute within DIS [Defence Intelligence Staff] about the way the 45 minute claim was described in the dossier.

In fact I volunteered the information at my first evidence session on July 22 that there were people in defence intelligence who'd made proposals for amendments and who indicated that they thought the language in places could be tightened up.

I outlined the substance of the dispute as to whether the intelligence showed or indicated particular conclusions and how this was resolved before it ever reached the Joint Intelligence Committee, let alone any minister.

The essence of this debate was set out by two DIS staff who took the view that the wording on three points of the dossier, including on the 45 minute claim, should have been expressed differently.

The disagreement was resolved by the then chief of defence intelligence and his deputy who concluded that the dossier wording was sound.

It cannot be stressed too strongly that even the two DIS members who took the view that they did, were not against the conclusion of the 45 minute claim in the dossier.

They simply proposed different wording reflecting the intelligence that they had seen.

The committee however believe that the failure to disclose specifically that the views of the two DIS staff had been recorded in writing was unhelpful and could have potentially misled them as to the nature of the dispute.

I recognise, given the focus on these issues, that it would have been helpful to the committee if I had mentioned specifically that the dispute was recorded in writing.

I did not say specifically that the points made by the staff had been put in writing, since these were detailed drafting points on the language of the dossier which were seen at the time as contributions to the normal, healthy debate within DIS about assessments.

It did not seem so unusual for such suggestions or amendments to be made in writing.

The committee also comment on my decision not to have a letter written to the committee outlining the concerns.

The committee have had the advantage in this case of seeing a briefing note prepared for me by officials before my appearance.

This suggested that a letter should be sent to the committee if the matter did not arise during the session on July 22.

As I had raised the dispute within DIS voluntarily at that session of the committee, I judged that there was no need to write subsequently.

I hope that the committee accepts that I did not mislead them, I note that the committee finds in the final words of their report that they agree with the conclusions of the FAC report that ministers did not mislead parliament.

I believe this is a fair assessment of these issues and I thank the committee for what their chairman said this morning."