hearing transcript - 21 august 2003 morning

8/8/2019 Hearing Transcript - 21 August 2003 Morning

1/43

Hearing Transcripts

1 Thursday, 21st August 2003 2 (10.30 am)3 MR DONALD ANDERSON (called)4 Examined by MR DINGEMANS5 LORD HUTTON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

6 I understand that there is a problem with the evidence7 screens which hitherto have worked very well. The8 technicians are working on the problem. The LiveNote9 screens are working, therefore I intend to proceed with10 the evidence. Just as soon as the evidence screens are11 working, they will be brought back into operation.12 MR DINGEMANS: Can you give his Lordship your full name?13 A. Donald Anderson.14 Q. What is your occupation?15 A. A Member of Parliament.16 Q. How long have you been a Member of Parliament for?17 A. A very long time. I began 1966 to 1970. I then lost18 that constituency. I returned in October 1974. I have

19 had the honour to be a member for the Swansea East20 constituency since that time.21 Q. Are you the Chairman of a Committee at the House --22 A. I am Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and have23 been since 1977.24 Q. Can you tell us a bit about that Committee?25 A. Yes. Like all Committees of the House, Select

11 Committees, it was set up in about 1979. Its job is to2 scrutinise a particular department, in our case of3 course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We do so4 formally by means of particular inquiries into aspects5 of policy and we hope that we, by so doing, perform6 a public service in that, in our case, the relevant7 department, the officials within the Foreign and8 Commonwealth Office know that their errors of commission9 or omission, their conduct may be subject to scrutiny on10 behalf of the representatives of the people in11 Parliament.12 Q. How many members does the Foreign Affairs Committee13 have?14 A. We have 11 members, my Lord, and we reflect the15 composition of the House. So the current position is16 that there are seven Government members, three17 Conservative members and one member of the18 Liberal Democrat Party.19 Q. Do you make use of advisers in those Committees?20 A. We are able to do so and we frequently do so. We have,21 of course, the Clerks who are members -- they are, in22 some ways, equivalent to civil servants but they would23 emphatically say they are not civil servants, they are24 servants of the House and they advise us in many ways.25 In addition to that, there are short-term advisers,

21 two years renewable for another two years, who assist2 the Committee on the research side; and of course we3 can, for particular inquiries, either because of the4 importance or because of the expertise which is needed5 in our judgment, we can ask senior outside advisers.


2/43

6 Q. How do you take evidence to the Committee, is that in7 public or private?8 A. The presumption always is that we hold our inquiries in9 public, because we are performing a public service. Our10 job is to be representatives of the public, hopefully11 standing in the shoes of the public and doing the job

12 which the public would like us to do in respect of the13 Executive as Parliamentarians.14 Q. And those proceedings, are they, when they are in15 public, always televised?16 A. That depends wholly on the television authorities. We,17 as members of the Committee, have no control over18 whether or not a particular session is televised.19 I assume that the judgment of the television authorities20 will be whether or not it is of sort of interest to the21 broader public.22 Q. On 3rd June 2003 you announced an inquiry. What was23 that inquiry?24 A. This was an inquiry -- the terms of reference are set

25 out in the submission which has been made by the Clerk.

31 May I, my Lord, refer to that?2 LORD HUTTON: Yes, please do.3 A. And the terms of reference adopted were:4 "To inquire into whether the Foreign and5 Commonwealth Office within the Government as a whole6 presented accurate and complete information to7 Parliament in the period leading up to military action8 in Iraq, particularly in respect of weapons of mass9 destruction."10 MR DINGEMANS: What was the rationale behind setting up the

11 inquiry at that time? It has been suggested, from some12 of the witnesses, that that was to investigate the13 claims that had been made on the Today broadcast. Did14 that influence your decision?15 A. My Lord, the background was that the Committee already16 had a very crowded programme. There was some reluctance17 to embark on this inquiry. Nevertheless, we felt that18 because of the extent of public interest in the events19 leading up to the war in Iraq, we would be subject to20 criticism if we were not to do so. It is fair to say21 that among the areas of press interest had been the22 Today Programme revelations of Mr Gilligan, and23 I suppose Susan Watts on Newsnight, but I may say that24 I personally, until very much later in the day, was25 unaware of the Newsnight interview. I think that

41 Mr Gilligan's Today revelations were only part of the2 context within which that decision was taken.3 Q. And once you have set up an inquiry, what do you do in4 terms of getting the evidence?5 A. Well, we, having set it up, decide on the terms of6 reference. We then decide roughly how long we want to7 take over an inquiry, we decide which witnesses are8 likely to assist us in coming to conclusions, and we9 advertise on the Internet the fact that we are holding10 such an inquiry; and we ask anyone who has any material11 evidence that they would like to give to send in that


3/43

12 evidence.13 In this case, my Lord, for example, we were14 extremely aware of the constraint of time, because15 I cannot recall whether I had told my colleagues on the16 Committee at this stage, but the Liaison Committee,17 which meets with the Prime Minister every six months,

18 I knew that the next meeting of that Committee was on19 8th July.20 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see.21 A. And it made some sense for us to use our report to22 inform the work of that Committee. I was also aware23 that Parliament was going into recess -- oh gosh, a week24 or two weeks after the Liaison Committee. Therefore,25 there was a question of time. Therefore, my practice is

51 always to seek to make the work of the Committee as2 nonpartisan as possible.3 I count it as a badge of pride that all the reports

4 in the last Parliament, 1997 to 2001, were unanimous5 with one slight exception, part of the Sierra Leone6 report, and all our reports until this report in this7 Parliament were indeed unanimous.8 So what I did, I met initially, as soon as the9 Committee had decided on the terms of reference.10 I asked the senior opposition figure Sir John Stanley to11 meet with me and the Clerk, and we discussed together12 the questions such as the timing, such as the witnesses,13 and whether or not we would need to have specialist14 advisers for the inquiry.15 LORD HUTTON: Yes.16 MR DINGEMANS: And I think on Thursday 5th June you have

17 suggested there was a conversation between the Clerk of18 the Committee and Patrick Lamb who we have heard19 evidence from. Do you know what the gist of that20 conversation was?21 A. I attended the particular meeting which I think was22 trying to inform middle ranking civil servants in the23 FCO of the work of Parliament. I attended that, but24 I was not party to any conversation. My Lord, all25 I know about the conversation is what I have seen in the

61 note which the Clerk has prepared for your Inquiry.2 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.3 MR DINGEMANS: What does that tell us?4 A. I am afraid since I was not -- I would have to refer to5 the Clerk's note.6 LORD HUTTON: It refers to that a workshop was held?7 A. It was a workshop. May I then -- in the chronology of8 events provided to the Inquiry by the Clerk, he says9 this, under Thursday 5th June:10 "The Clerk of the Committee and Patrick Lamb of the11 FCO had a private conversation in the margins of the12 workshop about Iraq and WMD with particular reference to13 the September 2002 and February 2003 dossier."14 MR DINGEMANS: Now, turning on to 12th June, did you get15 a response from the Foreign Secretary to a request that16 you had made about hearing oral evidence?17 A. Yes. My Lord, again referring to the note, the Foreign


4/43

18 Secretary wrote to me on that day refusing the request19 of the Committee to hear oral evidence from certain20 named individuals and declining to provide documents21 sought by the Committee.22 Q. Right. And do you have any powers in those23 circumstances to take the matter further forward?

24 A. My Lord, there is a difference between the formal powers25 and the actual powers, the text book powers if you will;

71 that Parliament has the ability, the Committees, to call2 for papers and persons. If we are denied access to such3 documents or such individuals, the Committee can, by4 special report to the House, indicate that they are5 being blocked and that, therefore, there can be a debate6 in the House, and I believe that the Government or the7 Executive generally has given an undertaking that time8 will be found for such a debate when a special report --9 if the special report recommends that that be the case.

10 That being said, my Lord, the convention was11 probably evolved prior to the development of party12 politics, the strength of parties in our system and13 clearly the likely effect of such a referral to14 Parliament is any government would use its majority and15 would find therefore for the Executive rather than for16 the Legislature.17 Therefore my experience, and I did chair another18 Committee before the Foreign Affairs Committee, is that19 it is often better to work informally and by negotiation20 to obtain what one can.21 LORD HUTTON: Quite. Yes. Yes.22 MR DINGEMANS: You then hear evidence from a number of

23 witnesses, and we have heard from Mr Campbell about the24 requests that were made for him to attend, the initial25 refusal and the circumstances in which he came to give

81 evidence.2 A. Yes.3 Q. On 19th June you heard evidence from Mr Gilligan for the4 first time?5 A. Yes.6 Q. And I think on 25th June you heard evidence from7 Mr Campbell?8 A. Yes.9 Q. And when did you start to draft the report?10 A. Well, the practice, my Lord, is this: that much of the11 conclusions, recommendations, are likely to emerge from12 the course of the questioning, but the Clerks, and these13 are -- it is a name which is much more than the -- the14 Clerks are very senior officials, the Clerks prepare an15 initial draft.16 Sorry, first of all, there is the heads of the17 report. The Clerks wish to obtain a steer from the18 Committee as to the nature of that report. Therefore,19 the Clerks would prepare a heads of report, which is, as20 its name suggests, no more than headings.21 LORD HUTTON: Quite.22 A. And that is endorsed after amendment by the Committee.23 The Clerks then go off and will prepare the report.


5/43

24 That is then put to the Chairman of the Committee who is25 able, himself, or herself, to make any necessary

91 amendments. It is then put to the Committee as a whole2 as the chairman's draft; and the Committee will examine

3 the report first informally, at which time it is clear4 where the areas of friction -- of difference may well5 be.6 LORD HUTTON: Quite. Yes.7 A. And that informal consideration was, I believe,8 certainly in a very long session on a Tuesday, I recall,9 which, if I recall, my Lord, went on for eight or nine10 hours. Certainly we went on to roughly 8 o'clock in the11 evening.12 MR DINGEMANS: That was Tuesday 1st July, was that?13 A. That sounds possible. Then we knew where the areas of14 difference were. The Committee then met on the Thursday15 morning and I think it is fair to say that unfortunately

16 I had come to the conclusion, as Chairman, by that time17 that we were going to break our habit of having18 unanimous reports; that there were only certain areas of19 the report which would not be unanimous, and therefore,20 however much I would strive to get unanimity, I would21 fail. Therefore we went ahead to set out those areas22 where there were honest differences.23 Q. The report I think was printed on Friday 4th July --24 A. It was printed but it would not have been available to25 the public at that time.

101 Q. No, and distributed on Monday 7th July; is that right?

2 A. Yes.3 Q. It was actually formally released at 10 o'clock. Do you4 release any copies beforehand?5 A. No. I am subject to correction from the Clerks, but my6 understanding my Lord is that it is released both --7 a matter totally in the hands of the Committee. We can,8 for example -- we not infrequently would release9 a report at, say, midnight, for the press conference at,10 say, 11 o'clock the following morning. On this occasion11 it was the Monday. One of the parameters was the fact,12 my Lord, of the Liaison Committee on the Tuesday, and13 therefore we released it an hour or so before the press14 conference.15 Q. Right.16 A. I think that is right. Was it 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock17 the press conference?18 Q. It seems to suggest it was released under embargo at19 9 o'clock in the morning then published at 10 o'clock.20 A. Yes. I believe it is sent probably to those witnesses21 who gave evidence, oral evidence to the Committee --22 Q. At 9 o'clock?23 A. Probably at the same time as the press.24 Q. Right. And so when it is released under embargo, that25 is also released to the press as well; is that right?

111 A. Oh, indeed.2 Q. And the report was then published. I am not able to


6/43

3 take you to any parts of it, but we have seen the4 conclusions which were set out over the last few days;5 and the gist of it was that the Foreign Affairs6 Committee rejected the claims that Alastair Campbell had7 inserted the 45 minute claim against the wishes of the8 Intelligence Committee; is that a fair analysis of it?

9 A. Not the Intelligence Committee, the intelligence10 community.11 Q. The intelligence community, sorry, yes.12 A. Yes, it will be seen, my Lord, from the minutes that13 that was one of the split votes, as there was14 a difference of view. The majority of colleagues felt15 that the evidence was sufficiently cogent to exonerate16 Mr Campbell on the basis, in my judgment, that if it17 were a conflict of credibility between Mr Gilligan and18 Mr Campbell, there was Mr Gilligan and an unknown source19 about whom we knew nothing.20 On the other hand, Mr Campbell had in support of him21 a number of witnesses, most especially Mr John Scarlett,

22 the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who23 had endorsed specifically the letter which Mr Campbell24 had sent to us. So I would imagine that for most of us,25 on the balance of probabilities, the evidence was

121 therefore on the side of Mr Campbell.2 May I say that those who did not support that were3 not saying that Mr Campbell was, in any way, guilty,4 they were agnostic because their judgment was that the5 evidence was not strong enough on either side.6 Q. Can I just bring you to a part of the report where you7 commented on the cooperation or absence of cooperation,

8 as you perceived it, from the judgment. What did you9 say in that respect?10 A. I would have to refer to the report itself. I will try11 to dredge my memory on this, my Lord.12 Q. I am sorry I cannot show it on the screen. It is not to13 be a memory test.14 A. I will do my best. My Lord, essentially if I might15 summarise that our political system, particularly in16 respect of foreign affairs, is very Executive dominated.17 Select Committees are relatively new creations.18 Therefore we are seeking to build up the role of19 Parliament as against the Executive and we have made20 certain advances. I believe since 1997 we have one key21 area is intelligence, and following the establishment of22 the Intelligence and Security Committee, that is used by23 the Executive as a device for our not divulging what we24 believe they should to us.25 Q. To you?

131 A. To us. We make the point that the Intelligence and2 Security Committee is a different creature from3 ourselves, that we meet in public, we are responsible to4 Parliament, not to the Prime Minister. And therefore,5 if we are to do our job properly, we should be given the6 tools to do that job; and those tools include much7 greater access to intelligence material and, if8 I recall, we wished, for example, to meet the Chairman


7/43

9 of the Joint Intelligence Committee, that he was one of10 the individuals who we could not see. We asked11 initially to meet Mr Alastair Campbell; that was denied12 us, but there was a change of mind on the part of the13 Executive in that respect. And there were various other14 requests as well.

15 May I say that in a way to make up for the refusal16 in respect of those named individuals, the Foreign17 Secretary did appear, I believe on a Tuesday, in public18 session and did give probably historically a greater19 time to the Committee than any other Foreign Secretary20 in an inquiry by agreeing to meet the Committee in21 private session on the Friday. I believe we met for22 over three hours with the Foreign Secretary where he23 did, to some extent, in private session, open the chest24 of intelligence and allowed us to see -- not to see the25 documents, my Lord, but he did read over some of those

14

1 documents to us.2 LORD HUTTON: Yes.3 A. So although we were denied witnesses who we thought were4 relevant to our work, the Foreign Secretary did seek to5 make up for that by giving an unprecedented amount of6 time to the Committee.7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.8 MR DINGEMANS: At FAC/3/10 this is what you said in your9 report:10 "We are strongly of the view that we were entitled11 to greater degree of cooperation from the Government on12 access to witnesses and to intelligence material",13 before going on to list those aspects and also pointing

14 out the fact that the Foreign Secretary had given15 evidence to you on a private basis.16 A. I believe that fundamentally to be correct; and I said17 so, my Lord, in the debate in Parliament I think on the18 Tuesday or the Wednesday of the final week.19 LORD HUTTON: I think the paragraph Mr Dingemans has20 referred to you ended by saying:21 "Yet it is fair to state that within the22 Government's self-imposed constraints the Foreign23 Secretary sought to be forthcoming, spending more than24 five hours before the Committee, and reading to us in25 private session limited extracts from a JIC assessment

151 dated 9th September 2002."2 A. My Lord, yes.3 MR DINGEMANS: So the report is then published and we have4 seen the report, the press statements released by the5 Government and the press statements released by the BBC.6 Do the Committee remain in this country or do they7 go somewhere else?8 A. No, my Lord. May I refer to the chronology?9 Essentially, we were reaching the end -- the period just10 before Parliament went into recess in July. There was11 a certain demob spirit around in Parliament generally.12 On the Monday, as learned counsel has said, we published13 the report on the morning. The majority of the14 Committee then went to Rome as part of Committee


8/43

15 business in respect of the EU.16 Unusually, as Chairman of the Committee, I stayed17 back because the Liaison Committee was meeting the18 Prime Minister the following morning; and I knew that19 I was their opening batsman on that morning because the20 majority of the Liaison Committee work was to be on

21 Iraq, questioning the Prime Minister then. So I stayed22 behind and I joined the Committee only late on the --23 sorry the Tuesday evening. I arrived, I think because24 of a late flight I arrived at 11.30 or midnight in Rome.25 Q. On Tuesday 8th July?

161 A. Indeed.2 Q. And the morning of Wednesday 9th July. Did you hear3 anything on 9th July about a press statement we know to4 have been released by the Ministry of Defence at about5 5.45 pm on the Tuesday?6 A. Yes, my Lord, personally by chance in the lounge in

7 Heathrow I saw Sky News. I then on my mobile had two8 calls from very enterprising journalists, one I think9 Channel 4, another one asking what my comments were and10 I was, I recall, saying something like: raised11 intriguing new questions.12 I then caught my flight, met two colleagues who were13 late in the hotel who told me it was already known to14 colleagues. We discussed the next full day on the15 Wednesday, the --16 Q. That is Wednesday 9th July.17 A. Wednesday the 9th, how the Committee might respond. It18 was clear to me that the Committee was not of one mind,19 and that therefore, since we did not have a formally

20 constituted meeting, the only way that the differences21 within the Committee could be resolved would be to hold22 a formal meeting of the Committee although time was23 short.24 So I then asked the second Clerk of the Committee25 who was with us to contact our senior Clerk to convene

171 a meeting of the Committee. Obviously all those --2 I believe I am correct in saying about eight of the 113 members were with us in Rome, so those members obviously4 knew of the meeting. It was a matter, my Lord, of5 contacting the three or so other members.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.7 A. That we would convene a meeting at the earliest possible8 opportunity on our return, that is the Thursday morning.9 It was put very generally, to discuss developments.10 Obviously developments really meant how the Committee11 would respond to the revelation that a civil servant had12 volunteered that he might have been the source.13 MR DINGEMANS: Did anyone contact you informally in this14 respect? Anyone from the Executive?15 A. No. My Lord, may I say that if I had been so contacted,16 I would not have been happy. I am a House of Commons17 man and I am very happy to tell your Inquiry the18 contacts I personally had with the Executive, but they19 were minimal.20 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much.


9/43

21 A. And I had no contact at all with the Executive and22 I would have been -- unless it were deemed to be23 helpful, I would have made clear that I was acting as24 a Committee person, as a House of Commons man.25 MR DINGEMANS: I imagine your views on the Executive

181 interfering with your Committee are reasonably well2 known.3 A. Clearly. May I say, my Lord, as an aside that I would4 not be Chairman -- the events of July 2001 are a matter5 of record, that the Executive tried to depose me in6 favour of someone else; and therefore I, along with my7 colleague Gwyneth Dunwoody, are unique in being the8 choice of Parliament rather than the parties.9 Q. Do you know whether or not any other members of your10 Committee who may have differing views on the strength11 of the Committee were contacted by the Executive, or you12 would not ever get to find that out?

13 A. Well, my views are known. To the best of my knowledge14 I was not informed by any other members of the Committee15 that they had been approached and save in an attempt to16 be helpful -- to give an example, my Lord.17 LORD HUTTON: Yes.18 A. When the Government changed their mind about the19 Committee being allowed to see Alastair Campbell, I had20 learnt that, as Chairman, because the Foreign Secretary21 telephoned me on the Sunday evening, and I remember it22 well. I was in a car on the way from Wales, my home.23 And it was followed up by a letter the following day.24 Now it is that sort of contact which is fine, but25 I would certainly not be willing to be subject to

191 lobbying.2 LORD HUTTON: As I understand your evidence, there was no3 contact even of that very minor nature between the 8th4 and 10th July.5 A. I ...(Pause). I certainly cannot recall any my Lord.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.7 A. I mean, my contacts with Ministers I can recall every8 one from over the period since July of last year in9 respect of the Committee.10 LORD HUTTON: Yes, thank you.11 MR DINGEMANS: So we come back to Thursday 10th July. You12 must have got back from Rome. When did you fly back13 from Rome?14 A. On the Wednesday evening.15 Q. So Wednesday 9th July. We are on Thursday morning,16 10th July?17 A. Yes.18 Q. Do you have a meeting of the Committee?19 A. Indeed.20 Q. What do you discuss then?21 A. Well, the meeting had been convened specifically to22 examine developments since we published our report on23 the Monday and to make any conclusions for follow-up24 action. I believe, my Lord, the chairman's note which25 the excellent Clerk of the Committee provided for me is


10/43

201 available to the Inquiry.2 LORD HUTTON: Yes.3 A. And --4 MR DINGEMANS: Can I, if it is helpful, read that out?5 Sorry it is not going to come up on the screen. It is

6 FAC/1/43. It says:7 "The decision to go to war in Iraq", this is item 18 on your agenda:9 "To consider developments since publication of the10 Committee's Report."11 We are on the 10th, you published your report on the12 7th. You put in brackets:13 "If I understand correctly what this is about, I am14 quite concerned that the Committee risks (a) getting15 dragged deep into the Campbell-Gilligan dispute, which16 it has very wisely avoided so far, and/or (b) exceeding17 its brief, by taking too close an interest in the18 Ministry of Defence."

19 Then you go on to deal with other matters.20 Does that assist in your recollection?21 A. Indeed. My Lord, I can perhaps explain the dynamics of22 a Committee and the role of a Chairman.23 LORD HUTTON: Yes.24 A. I am not a general leading an army.25 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

211 A. I, at best, am first among equals. The honourable2 members are proud of being honourable members.3 Therefore I cannot impose my will. I am certainly not4 a general and sometimes not more than a secretary.

5 I made clear my own views to the Committee. There was6 a well humoured debate; and these were genuine matters7 of judgment between colleagues as to whether we should8 pursue or, in effect, reopen the inquiry or not. We had9 a good tempered debate. It was a matter of honest10 judgment. We held a vote and the majority felt that we11 should call Dr Kelly to give evidence.12 MR DINGEMANS: His name by then had been published in the13 morning papers?14 A. Yes. I believe that when we took the decision on the15 Wednesday the name had not been disclosed but the fact16 that a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence had17 volunteered that he might be the source was known to us18 and that was the reason for convening the special19 meeting on the Thursday morning.20 Q. Right. Now, you will understand that his Lordship is21 conscious of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and does22 not want to infringe Parliamentary privilege and get23 into any details, but what was your own view about24 calling Dr Kelly?25 A. Well, I am really speaking on behalf of the Committee as

221 a whole but I can say my own view was that the Committee2 had worked extremely hard in respect of our report.3 I recall saying to the Committee that we had put our4 report to bed on the Monday. I feared that if we went5 down the track of reopening that report we would soon


11/43

6 find ourselves in a cul-de-sac. I recall using that7 word because we would hit shortly against the buffers of8 the people being not prepared to disclose things to us,9 particularly perhaps in respect of journalists, and that10 in my own judgment it would have been unproductive to11 continue with the view. But my Lord I am reluctant to

12 say my own position, because I speak on behalf of the13 Committee.14 LORD HUTTON: I appreciate that, yes.15 A. But I made clear my own view to the Committee. There16 were a number of colleagues who agreed with me. In17 a good tempered way other colleagues said: no, this18 really needs to be clarified, because fundamental to our19 report had been this question whether the politicians20 had overborne the intelligence community in respect of21 the information, and that we had come to certain views,22 and those views might well be fundamentally overturned23 as a result of meeting the person who may have been the24 source, and therefore it would look odd if we did not

25 seek to clarify the position.

231 In my own judgment, my Lord, if we had known, for2 example, prior to concluding the report that the civil3 servant had volunteered himself, probably members of the4 Committee, because of the importance of that, would have5 deferred publishing the report and would have sought to6 clarify matters as best we could. But we had concluded7 our report, we had published it, and this was the8 difference of view; and those who thought that we would9 be open to criticism if we did not seek to clarify these10 matters were in the majority.

11 LORD HUTTON: Yes. So if you had known on the Friday,12 4th July, when the report was in the process of being13 printed, that this civil servant had come forward, you14 might have delayed publication of your report?15 A. I can only give my own opinion on this my Lord.16 LORD HUTTON: Yes, quite.17 A. That the Committee works in a wonderful way and I cannot18 always anticipate what my --19 LORD HUTTON: But your own personal view would have been?20 A. My own judgment would have been that it was such an21 important new development that it could well have22 persuaded the Committee to hear further witnesses23 because our conclusions could well have been24 fundamentally altered.25 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

241 MR DINGEMANS: It was for those reasons that you had already2 asked for the -- because one way was hearing from3 Dr Kelly. I suppose another way would have been to look4 at the intelligence assessments you had already asked5 for; is that right?6 A. Well, one of the areas of the documents which we had7 sought to obtain, my Lord, when Mr Campbell appeared8 before the Committee and claimed that he had not "sexed9 up" the original draft, was we had asked to see each of10 the drafts as they appeared, both the drafts of the11 September 24th document -- both the very initial


12/43

12 embryonic draft of March of 2002 and then the draft13 which had been put to Mr Campbell by Mr John Scarlett on14 behalf of the Joint Intelligence Committee on or about15 9th July, and we had asked to see every draft thereafter16 to see whether or not it was true that there had been17 political interference in the intelligence process.

18 Q. And you were given those drafts?19 A. Well, if I recall, and it is a matter of record,20 my Lord, that Mr Campbell, during the course of his21 evidence, indicated that he hoped he would be able to do22 that. We were not in fact allowed it, but I suppose he23 would say the next best thing was that he sent a letter,24 after his evidence to the Committee, in which he set out25 those areas in which he had sought to amend the original

251 dossier document draft put forward by the Joint2 Intelligence Committee and that he said his conclusion3 was that it was neutral, in that some of his suggestions

4 had been sexed up -- sorry, had resulted in the document5 being sexed up, others in it being sexed down.6 What certainly impressed me was that he said, at the7 end of his letter, if I recall -- I do not have the8 letter before me.9 Q. It is in fact going to be FAC/3/132.10 LORD HUTTON: Sorry, I missed the reference.11 MR DINGEMANS: FAC/3/132, my Lord.12 If I have the wrong passage, tell me Mr Anderson.13 He says:14 "Finally, concerning the most serious allegation15 against me..."16 Is this the passage you think is --

17 A. No, I am referring to the letter which he wrote which,18 if I recall, set out individually those changes which he19 had made; and what impressed me certainly was this was20 not an individual seeking to set out his own stall in21 the most attractive way possible, because what impressed22 me at the end of that, he said: this letter has been --23 was it -- endorsed by the Chairman of the Joint24 Intelligence Committee.25 Clearly, if there had been anything there which had

261 been an exaggeration, which had been an omission or2 which had been put in improperly, my own view was that3 this very impressive civil servant John Scarlett would4 certainly not have endorsed it. This is memory, I am5 afraid, on my part. Was it the last paragraph of the6 letter which he wrote?7 Q. Yes. We have two memoranda that he submitted to the8 Committee rather than letters. But I think I have the9 right bit where he says this, paragraph 10:10 "Finally, concerning the most serious allegation11 against me, that I inserted the 45 minute intelligence12 whilst knowing it to be untrue, the Chairman of the JIC13 has confirmed that this was already included in the14 first draft that he sent me (10th September). It was15 not inserted at my request. The Chairman of the JIC has16 also confirmed, and authorised me to say, that it17 reflected recent intelligence incorporated already in


13/43

18 the JIC's classified assessment and that I played no19 part in the decision to include the intelligence in the20 dossier. The full text of the dossier, including the21 executive summary, was signed off by the Chairman with22 the full agreement of the JIC."23 A. In which case, my Lord, I regret my memory was failing.

24 I had assumed that the Chairman of the Joint25 Intelligence Committee had endorsed the whole of the

271 letter in saying that those amendments proposed by2 Mr Campbell, some of which were accepted, some not, that3 that version of events had been endorsed by the Chairman4 of the Joint Intelligence Committee. My memory may be5 incorrect on that.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes. But you are quite right that certainly7 the statement Mr Dingemans has read out in paragraph 10,8 indeed it is signed at the end by Alastair Campbell so9 it is very understandable you regard it as a letter.

10 Whether it is a memorandum or a letter could be11 debatable.12 MR DINGEMANS: So you, at that meeting on 10th July, going13 back, decide to call Dr Kelly?14 A. Yes.15 Q. In what circumstances do you normally call civil16 servants?17 A. When they have something which we believe to be relevant18 to the Committee, when they have a particular expertise.19 It is unusual, because clearly under the doctrine of20 Ministerial accountability, in most cases it is21 Ministers who appear on behalf of their departments.22 Cases where civil servants have appeared would be, if

23 I can think of two examples, one where the Committee was24 dealing with Yugoslavia and we had the Ambassador to25 Serbia Montenegro before us. On another occasion when

281 we were dealing with other Biological and Toxin Weapons2 Convention and it would have been unfair to expect3 a Minister to be on top of this highly, highly4 specialised area, and we had the relevant experts from5 the Foreign Office.6 Q. Right. You very kindly supplied to us a document7 relating to the rules governing the appearance of8 officials before Select Committees. It is FAC/8/1.9 I cannot bring it up on the screen. Shall I read out10 the relevant passage?11 A. Please.12 Q. "The rules governing the appearance of officials before13 Select Committees are less clear. The Government has14 issued guidance to civil servants giving evidence to15 committees, often referred as to the Osmotherly Rules.16 This states that civil servants give evidence on behalf17 of their Ministers and under their direction. In18 general the guidance states Ministers will agree to the19 request of a committee to take evidence from a named20 official, but they retain the right to suggest an21 alternative official whom they feel is better placed to22 represent them. In the case of disagreement about which23 official should appear, it is suggested the Minister


14/43

24 appears personally.25 "The Government has also promised time to allow for

291 a debate on the floor of the House in such cases. This2 way of operating has generally worked well in the past

3 with the majority of Committees receiving satisfactory4 evidence from the officials whom they wish to see.5 However, as Erskine May observed, the guidance has not6 been approved by Parliament and has no Parliamentary7 status and there have been a number of notable occasions8 where committees have disagreed strongly with9 departments over the appearance of named civil10 servants..." and those are listed.11 A. I think it is fair to say the Osmotherly Rules are12 a statement on behalf of the Executive. Parliament have13 never endorsed that. The two sides set out their stall.14 It is also fair to say in no case which we have been15 able to find where a Select Committee has sought the

16 authority of Parliament to overrule the refusal of17 a minister to allow a civil servant to appear has18 Parliament in fact overruled the Minister.19 Q. So Parliament has always gone with the Minister?20 A. Those are the precedents, yes.21 Q. Right. And the decision to call Dr Kelly was a 4/322 split. I think you mentioned there was a division23 amongst yourselves?24 A. My Lord, I can only -- within the Select Committee25 system a person who chairs only has a casting vote and

301 therefore I was not involved in that vote.

2 Q. If it had been 3 all, you might have had a say?3 A. Yes. I would have had a say.4 Q. A document we have as MoD/1/73, sorry I cannot show it5 to you, you wrote a letter to Mr Hoon saying:6 "Dear Geoff,7 "The Foreign Affairs Committee wishes to receive an8 answer to the following question [this is 10th July].9 "At what date, and at what time, did the meeting10 take place between Dr David Kelly and Mr Andrew Gilligan11 at which the conversation referred to in the MoD12 statement of 9th July took place?13 "You will wish to know that the Clerk is writing to14 Dr Kelly today, inviting him, to appear before the15 Committee to give oral evidence ... on 15th July..."16 You copy the letter to Jack Straw and Bruce George.17 There is a reply we have at MoD/1/74, also dated18 10th July -- sorry, another letter from Steve Priestely,19 who is your Clerk, is that right?20 A. Yes, the senior Clerk, the Clerk of the Committee.21 Q. To Dr Kelly saying effectively:22 "We wish to hear oral evidence from you in public at23 3 o'clock on Tuesday, 15th July, to answer questions24 directly relevant to the Committee's Report published25 earlier this week..." and asking for a reply."

311 Q. At MoD/1/82 on 11th July you get a letter from Mr Hoon:2 "Dear Mr Anderson,


15/43

3 "Thank you for your letter of 10th July about Dr4 David Kelly.5 "I understand that Dr Kelly met Mr Gilligan on6 22nd May at about 1700 at the Charing Cross Hotel.7 "You also ask that Dr Kelly appears before the FAC8 on Tuesday, 15th July at 1500. As you know, the

9 Government has already suggested that the ISC might wish10 to interview Dr Kelly as part of their continuing11 inquiry. (A copy of the MoD's press statement ... is12 attached). The Chairman of the ISC has now asked that13 Dr Kelly appears before them... I am writing to14 Ann Taylor today agreeing to this request.15 "Although the FAC has now completed its own inquiry,16 I can understand why you also wish to see Dr Kelly.17 I am prepared to agree to this on the clear18 understanding that Dr Kelly will be questioned only on19 those matters which are directly relevant to the20 evidence that you were given by Andrew Gilligan, and not21 on the wider issue of Iraqi WMD and the preparation of

22 the Dossier. Dr Kelly was not involved in the process23 of drawing up the intelligence parts of the Dossier.24 "As I noted above, Dr Kelly will have appeared25 earlier the same day before the ISC. I hope that you

321 will bear this in mind and not detain him for longer2 than about the same period of time indicated by the ISC3 [45 minutes]. As he is not used to this degree of4 public exposure, Dr Kelly has asked if he could be5 accompanied by a colleague. MoD officials will discuss6 this further with the Clerk."7 That was the letter you got, effectively restricting

8 your time, is that right, to 45 minutes?9 A. Making a request to restrict the time.10 Q. And also making a request to restrict the ambit of your11 inquiry to avoid asking Dr Kelly about Iraqi weapons of12 mass destruction and the preparation of the dossier?13 A. Yes. May I just say, my Lord, the relevance of putting14 that first question about the time and the place was15 that the Committee had written in similar terms to16 Mr Gilligan and therefore it would have been helpful if17 it would have obviously proved the source, if18 Mr Gilligan had said I met my source at such a place in19 time.20 Q. In fact, 10th July, 2003, FAC/1/6. Again I am afraid21 I will have to read it. This is to Mr Gilligan from22 you:23 "The Foreign Affairs Committee wishes to receive24 answers to the following questions.25 "On what date, and at what time, did you meet the

331 single source...?2 "Are you satisfied that the evidence you gave before3 the Committee on 19th June was in every particular4 truthful and accurate? Is there anything you wish to5 add...?"6 And his reply was at FAC/1/10. It is a reply dated7 11th July. He says this:8 "Dear Mr Anderson,


16/43

9 "I regret that, as I said to the Committee when10 I gave evidence, I can provide no further information11 about my source, or the circumstances surrounding my12 contact with him, because I have a professional and13 legal duty of confidence to him. Committee members14 appeared to accept and even support this stance when

15 I came before you last month."16 And he makes other comments about this being general17 practice, journalistic practice. He says this:18 "The Ministry of Defence has suggested that someone19 it describes as a middle-ranking official, tangentially20 involved in the dossier, may be my source, though it21 does not know he is. Can I remind the Committee of two22 of my source's claims which your proceedings confirmed23 to be true -- that the 45 minute point derived from one,24 uncorroborated informant; and that it arrived late in25 the process. Such facts could only have been known to

34

1 someone closely involved in compiling the dossier until2 a late stage."3 He goes on to confirm that his evidence was truthful4 and accurate. I think that is a fair gist of that5 letter.6 So you now, effectively, set the scene for both7 Mr Gilligan and Dr Kelly to give evidence to you?8 A. No, to respond to those letters. We had not made9 a request to Mr Gilligan at that stage.10 Q. Right. So Dr Kelly to give evidence, and you have11 further information now from Mr Gilligan?12 A. Yes.13 Q. And turning then to the 11th July, I think you recall

14 that the Clerk received a call from Mr Watkins who is15 Mr Hoon's private secretary. Can you help us with that?16 A. Well, I was unaware -- I am sorry, I did not have direct17 contact.18 Q. No.19 A. Obviously the Clerk was relaying to me, from time to20 time, certain things that he had learned. For example,21 I had been asked whether I would agree to Dr Kelly being22 accompanied by another individual, an amicus or --23 I readily agreed to that. It seemed totally fair that24 he should be. And I was therefore a little surprised --25 sorry, let me again try to remember. When Dr Kelly

351 eventually arrived before the Committee, he came without2 such a person. I cannot remember, my Lord, whether3 I had already been told by the Clerk that he was not to4 be, but clearly he had been given the opportunity to be5 so accompanied and I believe that somewhere on file6 is -- I believe he spoke to the --7 Q. Can I take you to 14th July?8 A. Please.9 Q. Perhaps you can just assist his Lordship by referring to10 what happens on 14th July.11 A. Hmm.12 Q. This is, I think, a response that you and the Clerk put13 together. In the morning is there contact from14 Dr Wells, who we have heard from, who is Dr Kelly's line


17/43

15 manager to the Clerk?16 A. My Lord, this is in the chronology. It is not something17 that I personally was involved with. Is it proper to18 read out what the Clerk has put in his own --19 LORD HUTTON: If you have no objection to that it would be20 helpful, I think.

21 A. Not at all. It says as follows:22 "Monday 14th July in the morning. In the late23 morning the Clerk received a call from Dr Kelly's line24 manager, Bryan Wells. The practicalities of Kelly's25 appearance were discussed, which room, how to get there,

361 whether passes were required, whether Kelly would be2 accompanied by another witness sitting alongside him.3 The Chairman had agreed that Dr Kelly could be4 accompanied if he wished. The possibility of providing5 a private area where Kelly and his colleagues could wait6 until called."

7 Then in the afternoon it states as follows:8 "At a time before 12.45 the Clerk received9 a telephone call from Dr Kelly who wished to know more10 about the process. The matters already discussed with11 Dr Wells were gone through again. Dr Kelly also stated12 his preferences not to make an opening statement and13 said that he would not be accompanied by another14 witness."15 Then my letter to the Secretary of State for Defence16 assenting to the conditions relating to Kelly's17 appearance proposed by the letter was drafted, signed,18 faxed and sent.19 MR DINGEMANS: As at 14th July you then accepted the

20 proposed time limit of about 45 minutes?21 A. I think it would be helpful to read my actual reply.22 Q. Right. MoD/1/84. I am afraid we are not all going to23 see it. Can I read it out?24 A. Please.25 Q. It is you to Mr Hoon. You write on 14th July:

371 "Dear Geoff,2 "Thank you for your letter of Friday, confirming the3 attendance of Dr David Kelly before the Committee4 tomorrow and answering the Committee's questions about5 the meeting between Dr Kelly and Andrew Gilligan.6 "I share your clear understanding of the scope and7 duration of the questioning to which Dr Kelly will be8 subject, and will draw it to the attention of my9 colleagues on the Committee."10 A. My Lord, I have mentioned the dynamics of the Committee11 before. All I could say was: I share your12 understanding. I drew that to the attention of the13 Committee. I said those in my view were proper ground14 rules and certainly had I sought to negotiate, the15 danger was that we would lose all prospect of that16 meeting. Clearly, also, very much in my mind was that17 on Thursday of that week, this was the meeting -- the18 meeting was to be on the Tuesday, Parliament was to go19 into recess and therefore there was a very important20 time constraint.


18/43

21 LORD HUTTON: Yes.22 MR DINGEMANS: So, effectively, the Secretary of State has23 managed, informally, knowing the power he has over24 witnesses, to suggest some conditions over which25 Dr Kelly should appear: namely restrict his time to

381 45 minutes for the reasons he has given and also, so far2 as you can control the Committee, trying to avoid3 questioning on weapons of mass destruction and dossier.4 A. Yes. My Lord I thought that was reasonable, for this5 reason: that the Committee had called a number of6 witnesses on the general point of weapons of mass7 destruction that had we so wished we could have called8 Dr Kelly during that time. And the new matters which9 had arisen since the Committee had concluded its report10 related specifically to the meeting with Mr Gilligan.11 Therefore, in this postscript, if one will, after -- my12 own view was that that was reasonable, although clearly

13 there would be a temptation by colleagues to ask this14 expert, a very distinguished expert, for his expert15 opinion on things.16 Q. We then come on to 15th July. If you can turn to the17 afternoon?18 A. Yes.19 Q. What happens at about 2.20?20 A. Again, my Lord, on hearsay the Clerk received a call21 from the Ministry of Defence, either Peter Watkins or22 Bryan Wells, informing him that because of a disturbance23 in Parliament Square Dr Kelly and the accompanying24 officials were unable to get through to the pass office.25 It was agreed they should present -- perhaps it is not

391 relevant the first paragraph of that. Then the second2 paragraph begins:3 "The Committee deliberated in private. Discussions4 centred on whether questioning of the witness should be5 restricted to 45 minutes. The scope of questioning was6 also raised. A substantial minority of members was7 unhappy about the conditions agreed between the8 Secretary of State and the Chairman. They had already9 received the exchanged of letters between the Chairman10 and Geoff Hoon and the Chairman had reminded them of his11 agreement."12 It is his agreement in respect of using my best13 endeavours.14 LORD HUTTON: Yes.15 MR DINGEMANS: Did Dr Kelly then arrive?16 A. Yes.17 Q. And how long did the session last for?18 A. My Lord, it is a matter of record, but I would guess19 about an hour and a half was it, or --20 Q. I think the Clerk suggests it is about 50 minutes.21 A. I am sorry, this is Dr Kelly. I recall just 50 minutes,22 I am sorry, apologies.23 Q. And when Dr Kelly gave evidence to you, how did he24 appear to you?25 A. (Pause). I have had the opportunity, on Tuesday of this


19/43

401 week, to see a video of that appearance, and it was2 clearly important for me to refresh my memory on that;3 that certainly no question of health was mentioned in4 Mr Hoon's letter. The question of the pressure was that5 there were to be two meetings that day, I think,

6 a meeting both of the Intelligence and Security7 Committee and of our own Committee, and I like to think8 that I personally always treat witnesses with respect,9 and particularly a witness as distinguished a public10 servant as Dr Kelly. Had he shown any evident signs of11 distress I would hope that I would have responded12 accordingly.13 May I also say, my Lord, that on my left would have14 been my Clerk, who is extremely good at pulling my elbow15 if, for example -- and saying things like: we are not16 getting anywhere with this line of questioning.17 LORD HUTTON: Yes.18 A. And I know that if there had been any signs of distress

19 my Clerk would have informed me as well.20 LORD HUTTON: Now, if you had observed that a witness was21 showing signs of distress, what is the likely course of22 conduct that you will follow? I appreciate it depends23 obviously on the degree of distress.24 A. My Lord it is rather like in a court I would imagine.25 I would have been in my discretion to say that the

411 Committee will adjourn.2 LORD HUTTON: Yes, quite. Yes.3 A. And I imagine, although I have never had to do this,4 that I would have responded in a humane way if I had

5 seen any signs of distress.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.7 A. Indeed. Again, I hope I am not being influenced now by8 having seen the video recently, but there were times9 when Dr Kelly was laughing and certainly he was clearly10 a man of considerable intellect and he could see which11 questions were coming.12 LORD HUTTON: Yes.13 A. And, when he did not want to answer directly, he clearly14 was on top of the subject and did so. The only problem15 we had was he was speaking extremely softly and we had16 a -- it was a very sultry, hot afternoon, and the fans17 were on and I had to ask the Clerk to turn the fans off18 I recall at one point. I do recall, my Lord, that19 I personally could not hear some of what Dr Kelly was20 saying, and I had the problem as: look I do not want to21 intervene too often but let me say, from time to time,22 please speak up.23 LORD HUTTON: Quite. Yes.24 MR DINGEMANS: Was it getting hot once the fans were25 switched off?

421 A. I think we all took our jackets off and it was certainly2 quite a hot day, yes. I do not remember personally3 feeling inconvenienced by the heat.4 Q. Occasionally counsel pick up that a witness may have5 been prepared, and I wondered did you pick up whether or


20/43

6 not Dr Kelly appeared to have been prepared? You must7 have seen many people appear in front of you.8 A. I honestly, my Lord, did not think about that at the9 time although I have subsequently learnt that there was10 an extensive briefing provided for Dr Kelly by the11 Ministry of Defence and a briefing which went well

12 beyond the parameters which the Secretary of State had13 provided for me in his letter.14 Q. But you did not at the time, and it is only your15 impression at the time that I am interested in.16 A. No, we are talking about a late gentleman who had17 been -- I think he had told us, on two or three18 occasions, was used to dealing with the press.19 A distinguished scientist. And he appeared to me to be20 in control of things; and it was clearly a man of great21 competence, and who was not overborne because he was22 perhaps one -- I was not aware at the time, I confess,23 that he had been dealing with journalists much during24 the UNSCOM days, but certainly someone who was very

25 able.

431 Q. You have also, very kindly, provided to the Inquiry at2 FAC/1/19 to 23, which I am afraid I cannot bring up,3 something called "Contents of the Brief". They appear4 to be suggested questions to Dr Kelly. Is what happens5 beforehand that you get some suggested questioning?6 A. My Lord, invariably before any Committee meeting, the7 Clerk would provide a background brief which does8 include suggested questioning. The Committee, of9 course, can accept or reject that but it is a very10 useful guide. There was such a list of questions and

11 background on this occasion.12 Q. Did you discuss with any other members of the Committee13 any questions that had been suggested to them?14 A. No. All I can recall, my Lord, is this, and this has15 come to light I understand in the Inquiry a day or so16 ago, that I recall fairly vividly that I was, of course,17 in the chair. To my immediate left was the Clerk, to my18 immediate right was Mr Chidgey. Just as the witness,19 Dr Kelly, was about to come in -- therefore, my thoughts20 were partly on my first question and greeting him, and21 I may have been sort of partly turning to the Clerk as22 well -- my colleague turned to me and said something23 like: I would like to be called early because I have to24 leave early; something like: I have had some briefing25 from Mr Gilligan. May I say that he said: this is in

441 confidence and I like to keep confidences.2 So what I had decided to do prior to this coming to3 the notice of the Inquiry was, I believe I told the4 Clerk over the telephone on Monday, certainly I raised5 it on Tuesday before this was raised in the Inquiry,6 that I had this dilemma: I had been told something in7 confidence by a colleague, and I wanted to know from the8 counsel to Parliament whether my duty -- my public duty9 overrode that. Happily that problem was resolved in10 that I did not have -- I had already raised it with the11 Clerk and indeed with -- and it came up in the afternoon


21/43

12 discussion with the counsel.13 Q. Were you surprised to hear what Mr Chidgey said to you?14 A. Yes.15 Q. Do you consider it appropriate that someone who has16 previously appeared before you should be suggesting17 questions to one of your members?

18 A. I know of no precedent for someone who is a witness and19 therefore it is very unusual -- well, it is20 unprecedented in my view.21 Q. And in fact if we had the screens, I could show you at22 FAC/1/65 to 66 Mr Chidgey's questions which relate to23 Susan Watts' broadcast on Newsnight; and I could show24 you at FAC/6/2 to 3 the full transcript of the e-mail25 from Mr Gilligan to a researcher, I think assisting

451 Mr Chidgey.2 A. I did not know, at least I was not -- again this is3 a long time ago, my Lord. I believe the statement was:

4 I have been told -- I have been given briefing, in5 confidence. I certainly -- the word "e-mail" did not6 occur.7 Q. Right.8 A. It may well be that that same e-mail was passed not just9 to Mr Chidgey, Mr Chidgey certainly told me.10 Q. We have seen, I think we have all seen, the video of11 Dr Kelly giving evidence and some of the questions being12 put to him. Did you consider the questions that were13 being asked of Dr Kelly to be fair?14 A. (Pause). My Lord, can I answer in general in this way,15 and this was reinforced by my seeing of the video on16 Tuesday afternoon, that I think that the tenor of the

17 Committee hearing taken as a whole was reasonable and18 fair and that there was a degree of respect. Indeed, if19 I recall, one of my colleagues said specifically to20 Dr Kelly that he had acted in an entirely honourable21 way; and in my summing-up I wholly endorsed that view of22 the colleague who had said it.23 LORD HUTTON: Sorry, what summing-up was this?24 A. Sorry, what I mean, sorry, my Lord, my last -- at the25 end, the final flourish.

461 LORD HUTTON: Your concluding remarks.2 MR DINGEMANS: Could I reread them. It is FAC/1/96:3 "Dr Kelly,4 "Sir John [Stanley] has properly said that you acted5 honourably. When you thought that you might have been6 the source you wrote a letter volunteering the fact of7 your meeting. Given what has subsequently happened, do8 you feel used in any way?"9 I think that is what you are referring to?10 A. Yes. I certainly thought of Dr Kelly as a distinguished11 scientist, which he was, a man who had given major12 public service, both in the domestic and international13 field; and hopefully sought to treat him in that way.14 LORD HUTTON: Mr Dingemans, I think that we should give the15 stenographers a break now. I will rise for five16 minutes.17 (11.45 am)


22/43

18 (Short Break)19 (11.55 am)20 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Anderson, we have nearly been through the21 appearance on 5th July. Towards the end at FAC/1/9122 Sir John Stanley said this to Dr Kelly:23 "Who made the proposition to you, Dr Kelly, that you

24 should be treated absolutely uniquely, in a way which25 I do not believe any civil servant has ever been treated

471 before, in being made a public figure before being2 served up before the Intelligence and Security3 Committee?4 "Answer: I cannot answer that question. I do not5 know who made that decision. I think that is a question6 you have to ask the Ministry of Defence."7 Does Sir John Stanley's question accord with your8 own experience of how civil servants are treated?9 A. This was a fairly unique occasion. I think certainly

10 I can say that when I heard that the Ministry had11 acceded to our request I was somewhat surprised at that,12 and you will note that after the hearing I was asked by13 the Committee to write a letter to the Foreign Secretary14 stating, in terms, that we thought that Dr Kelly was15 probably not the source, but also expressing the concern16 which the Executive had asked me to convey at the manner17 at which he had been treated; and it is difficult to18 take the lid off heads of members of the Committee and19 define the motives. I think that was related to the20 manner in which his name had been disclosed.21 Q. The letter you wrote was 15th July. It is at MoD/1/89.22 I am still not able to show it to you, I do not think.

23 You said this:24 "The Committee deliberated after hearing Dr Kelly's25 evidence, and asked me to write to you, expressing their

481 view that it seems most unlikely that Dr Kelly was2 Andrew Gilligan's prime source for his allegations about3 the September dossier on Iraq. Colleagues have also4 asked me to pass on their view that Dr Kelly has been5 poorly treated by the Government since he wrote to his6 line manager admitting that he had met Gilligan."7 Was that because, having heard Dr Kelly, without any8 admission from the BBC that he was their source, all you9 had was Dr Kelly's admissions that he had said some10 things which appeared similar to what Mr Gilligan had11 reported but not others?12 A. Yes, my Lord, I think it is fair to say that when the13 hearing began most of my colleagues believed that14 Dr Kelly was the prime source; and he had, in the course15 of his evidence, convinced a number but not all of my16 colleagues that he was probably not the source and17 therefore that letter conveyed the majority view of the18 Committee.19 LORD HUTTON: Could you just expand on this a little for me,20 please, Mr Anderson? The suggestion or the comment that21 he had been poorly treated, do I understand that that22 was made on the basis that the MoD statement had at any23 rate implied that Dr Kelly was the source but that at


23/43

24 the end of the hearing before your Committee the25 majority of the members had come to the view that he was

491 not? Was that the --2 A. I think that is fair, my Lord, yes. The MoD statement

3 points in a certain direction stating, if I recall, that4 Mr Gilligan had spoken to four individuals with whom5 only one had -- of whom -- with only one had he spoken6 in respect of Mr Campbell.7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.8 A. Now, since Dr Kelly admitted that he had spoken to9 Mr Gilligan about Mr Campbell, it did point fairly10 clearly in that direction.11 LORD HUTTON: Quite. Yes.12 A. But there were answers given by Dr Kelly suggesting that13 he could not have been the source; but it was fairly14 ambivalent, as the hearing continued. And at one point15 he appeared to be seeking almost to put us back on track

16 in saying he may have been the source. It was really --17 as far as I can recall, it was the way in which his name18 had come to the surface from the Ministry which19 persuaded the Committee to make that comment.20 LORD HUTTON: Those are, as it were, perhaps two separate21 aspects of the same matter. I just want to be quite22 clear about this. Is it correct to say, then, that the23 comment or the observation that he had been poorly24 treated really arose from two matters, although they are25 obviously closely related? One is that the MoD

501 statement indicated or implied that he was the source,

2 and do I take it from that that viewing it in that way3 he could be regarded as having been poorly treated if he4 was put into the spotlight with all the attendant5 publicity as being the source; but secondly that the6 Committee took the view he had been poorly treated in7 the way in which his name had, as it were, leaked out to8 the press? Was that part of the thinking?9 A. Well, my Lord, this was a conclusion --10 LORD HUTTON: I know you are a group of people.11 A. A group of colleagues.12 LORD HUTTON: Absolutely, yes.13 A. One would need to ask each one what was his motive.14 LORD HUTTON: I fully recognise you are seeking to state the15 views of others. Yes.16 A. That was the consensus view of the Committee. My Lord,17 with respect, you are absolutely correct in that there18 were two elements to this conclusion, one that having19 come to the view -- it is the view which personally20 I was more doubtful about -- having come to the view21 that he was probably not the source, that led to the22 second leg, the second conclusion. Equally, it was the23 manner in which his name had come to the surface, was24 another factor --25 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

511 A. -- which probably induced the Committee to draft it in2 that way.


24/43

3 LORD HUTTON: Are you able to comment at all, and you may4 feel that you are unable, but are you able to comment on5 how you think the name should have been put into the6 public domain if that was going to happen? I mean, one7 possibility was that the Ministry of Defence would8 simply have stated: a civil servant, Dr David Kelly, has

9 informed the Ministry that he met Mr Gilligan on10 22nd May. Was it, do you think, the view of the11 Committee that rather than the leaking out and the12 method that was adopted, it would have been better for13 the Ministry just to have made a clear statement?14 A. My Lord, it is very difficult --15 LORD HUTTON: You may not be able to comment on that.16 I would just like to explore that insofar as you are17 able.18 A. Clearly it was a process and it was a decision which19 I hope was taken rationally, that this process approach20 rather than --21 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

22 A. Obviously the Ministry at that stage did not know for23 certain although they suspected that that was the case.24 LORD HUTTON: Yes.25 A. It may also -- again I am seeking to divine the motives

521 of the Ministry -- it may also have been by having it as2 a process to seek to protect Dr Kelly and to give him3 time to prepare his own comment. I honestly do not --4 find it difficult to comment.5 MR DINGEMANS: On 16th July Mr Priestely writes a letter to6 Mr Watkins asking for questions that had been I think7 put by Mr Mackinlay for details of the press contacts.

8 A. Yes.9 Q. You also decided to recall Mr Gilligan to give evidence,10 is that right?11 A. Yes.12 Q. When was that?13 A. May I see? We saw Mr Gilligan on the Thursday, indeed14 the hearing straddled the time when Parliament was15 sitting and when Parliament was not sitting.16 Q. I appreciate that.17 A. And we made the decision -- may I refer to the notes,18 my Lord? It would have been --19 Q. If you look on 15th July, in the afternoon.20 A. Yes.21 Q. Three paragraphs up from the bottom.22 A. "After the evidence session the room was cleared,23 Dr Kelly and his colleagues first being escorted. The24 Committee then deliberated in private on its next steps.25 It was proposed that the Chairman should write to the

531 Government giving the opinion" -- this was the letter2 referred to by learned counsel.3 Q. I see that. Could you drop down to the next paragraph?4 A. "The Committee also discussed whether Andrew Gilligan5 should be invited to give further oral evidence.6 Gilligan had replied to the Chairman refusing to answer7 the question put to him in writing about when he had met8 his source. A member moved formally that


25/43

9 Andrew Gilligan be invited to give further evidence in10 private at 3 o'clock on the Thursday 17th July. The11 Committee divided 3/2 and the motion was passed. One12 member who was present declined to vote, so by a narrow13 majority the Committee decided to invite Mr Gilligan to14 give evidence."

15 Q. We know he comes to give evidence on 17th July. I just16 wanted to ask you one question, if I may, about some of17 the questions that were put to him. We have now seen18 the private or the private session that has now been,19 I think, released.20 LORD HUTTON: Why was that session in private?21 A. My Lord, trying to recall the reasoning, there were some22 who wanted to call him, some who did not want to call23 him; and perhaps the private came as part of24 a compromise. I think the better reason, and probably25 the prevailing reason was that there was a better chance

54

1 of his being frank with the Committee if the matter were2 heard in private; and that therefore greater clarity3 could be obtained by that route rather than by having4 a public session. We had already of course heard him in5 public.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes, thank you.7 MR DINGEMANS: In that private session, if one is looking at8 FAC/5/5 -- I will have to read it out.9 A. Please.10 Q. Ms Stuart asked him a question:11 "If you were to look back at the last 12 months and12 the reporting in relation to you as the Defence13 Correspondent and the Today Programme, would there be

14 occasions when with hindsight you would now say that15 actually you were wrong?16 "Mr Gilligan: I cannot think of any. Again, this17 is not a question I prepared for by looking back through18 all the stories I have ever done. Nobody in any form of19 life, I think, would ever say that they were entirely20 infallible.21 "Ms Stuart: May I just talk about one particular22 story which you may recall? It was reported on the23 Today Programme on Wednesday, 24th February..." and she24 goes on to relate it.25 Did you know whether anyone had given Ms Stuart any

551 assistance in formulating the questions to be put to2 Mr Gilligan?3 A. No. May I, my Lord -- prior to Mr Gilligan's appearance4 on a second occasion, I recall saying in private to the5 Committee that: this is going to be a very short6 session, we are going to ask him the question about his7 source, he is going to say no and that is the end of the8 story, where actually it will be a pretty non-productive9 session. But saying: let us at least see, by skirting10 around the issue, what progress if any we can make,11 I recall Ms Stuart and Sir John said they had questions12 that were not directly related to source.13 All I can recall about Ms Stuart's question is14 thinking to myself: she has got a good researcher. But


26/43

15 I am not aware that anyone had briefed any member of the16 Committee in respect of that. Certainly no-one told me.17 Q. No-one had told you about that?18 A. No, and I had received no briefing of any sort19 personally.20 Q. Finally, are you aware of anything else relating to the

21 circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist22 his Lordship with?23 A. No, my Lord, save this: that I personally found the24 viewing of the video very valuable, to obtain a view of25 the spirit within which that hearing was conducted; and

561 I fear that the public may have had a somewhat distorted2 view because one very small part of that was relayed3 again and again and again, which was not4 a representative part, and that therefore I would hope5 that as many people as possible will be able to view the6 video to obtain a fair view of that hearing.

7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.8 Mr Anderson, you said in your evidence that when9 your Committee were considering whether to call10 Dr Kelly, once his name had been released, that there11 were differing views, and your view was that it might12 simply lead into a cul-de-sac, I think was the term that13 you used, but that some other members of the Committee14 thought he should be called because it went to the15 fundamental question which had been before the16 Committee. I hope that is a reasonably accurate summary17 of your evidence.18 A. Exactly.19 LORD HUTTON: Now, evidence has been given to the Inquiry

20 that over the weekend before the Ministry of Defence21 statement was released there was very considerable22 concern in Downing Street, once they had learnt of23 Dr Kelly coming forward, that if his name were not put24 into the public domain and also, of course, put within25 the knowledge of your Committee, that the Government,

571 Downing Street, might be accused of a cover-up. Now,2 have you any comment on that attitude on the part of3 senior officials?4 A. My Lord, I was not aware, of course, of any such5 discussions over the weekend.6 LORD HUTTON: I appreciate that. I am just asking you to7 comment on the thought that officials who knew of him8 coming forward and knew his name had the concern that if9 his name were not revealed, they could be accused of10 a cover-up.11 A. I think that the press would be very liable to raise12 that. The Government clearly was sensitive to the13 charge that on one interpretation, my Lord, this whole14 superstructure was based on one meeting between one15 journalist --16 LORD HUTTON: Yes, quite.17 A. -- and an official source --18 LORD HUTTON: Hmm.19 A. -- in which the source said the word "Campbell".20 LORD HUTTON: Hmm.


27/43

21 A. If, at the point when one individual, one official who22 had met Mr Gilligan had volunteered -- had come forward,23 and if the Government had done nothing about it in terms24 of the public, clearly that would have come out.25 LORD HUTTON: Hmm.

581 A. And they would have been subject to very intensive2 criticism, in my judgment, had they not in some way --3 maybe the manner in which they did it is open to4 criticism, but I suspect that whatever way they did it5 would be open to criticism.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see.7 Now, Mr Anderson, reading the record of the sessions8 when Mr Gilligan and Mr Campbell and Dr Kelly appeared9 before you, the procedure is that the different members10 of the Committee take part in the questioning. Now, if11 I may, I would like to ask you: has consideration ever12 been given by your Committee to instructing counsel to

13 put the questions on the Committee's behalf? Because in14 a sense when various members of the Committee come in15 one member may have been following a particular line of16 questioning, which might be interesting to pursue, but17 then another member comes in on a quite different line.18 I quite appreciate this is a Committee of Parliament19 and the members of it may have differing views and are20 fully entitled to explore the points that are of21 interest to them, but has consideration ever been given22 to that procedure, perhaps followed by members of the23 Committee putting individual questions if there are24 further points they want to put? I thought I would just25 raise it with you.

591 A. My Lord, I know of no such consideration. It would be2 a matter not for the Foreign Affairs Committee but for3 the House as a whole.4 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see, yes.5 A. And I think Members of Parliament would be very jealous6 of their own ability as Members of Parliament to put7 questions that were to be taken over, professionalised.8 LORD HUTTON: I was not suggesting professionalised. I must9 make it clear I was not suggesting more work for the10 Bar.11 A. I think the real answer is this would be a matter for12 the House as a whole. Certainly my own view is that for13 the vast majority of such inquiries it would not be14 relevant and would not be of assistance. That is very15 much a personal opinion. This would be a matter for the16 House.17 LORD HUTTON: I fully understand that. Thank you very much18 indeed Mr Anderson.19 MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, Mr Rufford.20 LORD HUTTON: Yes.21 MR NICHOLAS RUFFORD (called)22 Examined by MR KNOX23 MR KNOX: My Lord, the next witness is Mr Rufford.24 LORD HUTTON: Yes.25 Q. Mr Rufford could you tell the Inquiry your full name and


28/43

601 occupation?2 A. Yes, it is Nicholas Rufford and I am a journalist.3 Q. And for which paper do you write?4 A. The Sunday Times.5 Q. Since when have you written for the Sunday Times?

6 A. Since 1987.7 Q. When did you first meet Dr Kelly?8 A. I first met Dr Kelly in 1997.9 Q. And how did you first come to contact him?10 A. One of his colleagues, I believe it was Terence Taylor,11 gave me his telephone number and I called him.12 Q. What was the subject you were calling him about?13 A. It was the subject of the Russian bio-weapons programme,14 about which we were preparing an article at the time.15 Q. And roughly how many times have you met him or did you16 meet him after that?17 A. I called him and met him about 40 or 50 times.18 Q. 40 or 50 times called and met. Would you be able to say

19 roughly how many times you actually met him?20 A. Possibly 20 occasions.21 Q. And where did you usually meet?22 A. We met in the Wagon and Horses pub in Southmore village.23 We also met in his house, and we also met in London,24 often at a restaurant.25 Q. What did you generally speak to Dr Kelly about?

611 A. Work related subjects. We generally spoke about2 bio-weapons which was his area of expertise; we also3 spoke about social issues, about science, and4 philosophy, a whole range of issues.

5 Q. Dr Kelly wears many different hats in a way. He was6 a Porton Down scientist, he worked for the Ministry of7 Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and he was8 also a UN weapons inspector. When you spoke to him,9 what aspect of his work did you generally talk about?10 A. He was generally comfortable talking about his work as11 a UN weapons inspector or as a former weapons inspector,12 after 1998. He was less comfortable talking about his13 work for the Ministry of Defence or for the Foreign14 Office.15 Q. And if you did raise aspects which related to his work16 at the Ministry of Defence or Foreign and Commonwealth17 Office, what would he usually say?18 A. He would discuss things occasionally in broad brush. He19 would often -- if I wanted to do a formal interview on20 a matter related to his work for the Foreign Office for21 the Ministry of Defence, he would refer me to the22 Foreign Office press office, which usually refused.23 Q. Did Dr Kelly ever hand over any documents to you?24 A. He did not.25 Q. Or did he impart any secrets to you?

621 A. To my knowledge, he never imparted any secrets. He was2 a man of discretion and he usually guarded confidences.3 He talked to me about subjects which were generally4 factual, related to his area of interest; and I always5 got the impression that he thought that it was important


29/43

6 that the public had a wider understanding of his field.7 Q. Did he ever tell you that before he could speak to you8 he needed to obtain clearance from anyone?9 A. He never said that, no, and I would be surprised if he10 did, because he would speak to me spontaneously. For11 example, if I called him on the telephone he would not

12 say: I need to get permission from my line manager or13 from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office. He14 would usually chat to me in a straightforward way.15 Q. Did he ever explain why not, why he did not need to get16 any prior clearance?17 A. He once said to me that "they", by which I believe he18 mean the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office,19 were used to his unorthodox ways.20 Q. How many articles did you write in the Sunday Times21 which mentioned him by name?22 A. I believe we published six articles before his death23 which quoted him.24 LORD HUTTON: And also which mentioned him by name?

25 A. Six articles which quoted him. I believe there may have

631 been more than that which mentioned him by name.2 MR KNOX: So the name Dr Kelly?3 A. The name Dr Kelly might have cropped up. For example,4 if he was to lead a weapons inspection team into Iraq we5 might have mentioned him by name but not quoted him6 because he was in Iraq and we were unable to contact7 him.8 LORD HUTTON: I think this is probably self-evident, but9 I want to be absolutely clear. When you say an article10 would quote him, would you attribute the quotation to

11 him? Would he be named as the source of the quotation?12 A. Yes, as I say, on about half a dozen occasions since13 1998 we quoted him and attributed those quotes to14 Dr Kelly.15 MR KNOX: What were those articles which attributed quotes16 about?17 A. A variety of subjects but usually about bio-weapons.18 I wrote and researched an article about an Iraqi19 bio-weapons scientist who had trained in the UK. He was20 very helpful. I believe we quoted him on that subject.21 We also quoted him in connection with Iraq's attempts to22 restart a foot and mouth vaccine plant at Al-Dora which23 he felt very strongly about. He thought it had the24 potential to become a bio-weapons plant if Iraq had been25 allowed by the United Nations to restart it. On that

641 subject he felt very strongly, as I say. We quoted him2 by name.3 Q. Did Dr Kelly ever complain to you about any of the4 articles which mentioned him by name?5 A. He never complained.6 Q. You never received any direct complaint yourself or any7 complaint to your editor or anything?8 A. Not at all and because he was always happy to speak,9 I assumed that he was happy for his name to appear.10 Q. We know that you wrote an article on 13th April 2003,11 where he says, in effect, that he knows where the bodies


30/43

12 are buried or --13 A. Not he, Dr Kelly, but he is talking about an Iraqi14 general.15 Q. Who would know where the bodies were buried?16 A. Yes.17 Q. There has been some indication that he was disturbed to

18 find his name was actually quoted in that article. Did19 he come back to you and make any complaint about that?20 A. He did not, no.21 Q. Roughly, apart from the articles where you mentioned him22 by name, how many other articles did you write for the23 Sunday Times which directly used information or indeed24 opinions that he had provided?25 A. I would rather not say how many because when I did not

651 quote him or use his name it was because there was an2 issue of confidentiality.3 Q. Did Dr Kelly ever communicate with you by e-mail?

4 A. Yes, he did.5 Q. And roughly how frequently?6 A. Perhaps once a month.7 Q. Since when?8 A. I think that in all he probably sent me about 209 e-mails, between the periods of 1998 and 2002.10 Q. And would these be in reply to e-mails or questions you11 had asked or would they sometimes be unsolicited?12 A. They were almost always in reply to questions which13 I had asked him, but occasionally they were about14 subjects which he knew I was interested in.15 Q. What type of subjects would these e-mails be about?16 A. Again usually about bio-weapons. He had some interest

17 in the hunt in the United States for the person who had18 sent the letters containing anthrax. I believe he had19 been consulted about that by the Americans because he20 was an expert on that particular subject. And he21 occasionally sent me e-mails regarding that, but they22 would usually be a copy of an article that had appeared23 in the New York Times or the Washington Post, so it was24 information already in the public domain that he was25 simply drawing to my attention.

661 Q. Do you know if Dr Kelly spoke to other journalists?2 A. I saw his name in other newspaper articles, particularly3 in the New York Times. His name was in a book called4 "Germs" written or co-authored by somebody called5 Judith Miller. I believe Tom Mangold used him as6 a source for a book also on bio-weapons. He spoke to7 a number of journalists.8 Q. From your acquaintance with him what was your general9 impression of his character? There have been some10 suggestions he was some gossipy, other people say11 precise or factual. How would you describe him?12 A. On the whole I would say he was a committed scientist.13 He had a very good grasp of his subject. But he14 certainly enjoyed talking about it and conveying it to15 a wider readership. I think he felt a mission to16 explain.17 Q. Did he ever ask you for information?


31/43

18 A. Yes, he did, yes.19 Q. And on what type of subjects?20 A. When he assisted me in the preparation of an article21 about an Iraqi bio-weapons scientist who had trained in22 Britain, he was very interested in the comments of23 various academics at various British universities who

24 I had spoken to and who had worked with these Iraqi25 scientists. For example, there was an Iraqi scientist

671 who trained at Newcastle University and I spoke to quite2 a few of the academic staff there and Dr Kelly was very3 interested in the comments and recollections of those4 staff. When I discussed it with him, he took careful5 notes of what I was telling him.6 Q. After publication of the dossier in September 2002 but7 before the Andrew Gilligan story at the end of May 2003,8 did you talk to Dr Kelly about the September dossier at9 all?

10 A. Can you repeat the dates that you are interested in?11 Q. Between September 2002 and the end of May 2003.12 A. I believe I had a number of conversations with Dr Kelly13 about the Government dossier.14 Q. And I think it is fair to say you do not appear to have15 reported any of those conversations?16 A. The Sunday Times published a number of articles about17 the Government's dossier, but Dr Kelly's name did not18 appear in any of those articles.19 Q. Did he express any views about the dossier in those20 conversations to you?21 A. Again I would rather not talk about that because there22 is an issue of confidentiality.

23 Q. We know the Andrew Gilligan article or report appeared24 on the Today Programme on 29th May 2003. After that25 story broke, did you speak to Dr Kelly in June 2003?

681 A. Yes, I did. Yes.2 Q. And what was the first occasion you spoke to Dr Kelly3 on? When did you first talk to him after that?4 A. Which date?5 Q. In June 2003.6 A. Yes, it was in June 2003. And I telephoned him and7 I believe, at the time, that he was in Qatar and8 I believe that he was preparing to go to Iraq to join9 the Iraq survey team.10 Q. Can you remember what the date of that conversation was?11 A. I have a note of it, but I do not have it here.12 Q. And what did you talk about on that occasion?13 A. We began by talking about the fact that our positions14 had been reversed because when I had had the15 conversation with him on 13th April I had been in Qatar16 and he had been in Britain and now he was in Qatar. We17 talked about the hunt for weapons of mass destruction18 and I believe the subject of the dossier came up at that19 time, and also the row between the BBC and the20 Government.21 Q. Did he say anything on that subject?22 A. He was anxious, it seemed to me at the time, not to talk23 about that subject.


32/43

24 Q. Was there anything he was prepared to talk about?25 A. He did talk about the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass

691 destruction and he talked about how they were probably2 fairly well hidden and they were going to be difficult

3 to find. And I recall that he mentioned that it was4 very easy to hide weapons of mass destruction because5 you simply had to dig a hole in the desert, put them6 inside, cover them with a tarpaulin, cover them with7 sand and then they would be almost impossible to8 discover.9 Q. Did you get any impression of his state of mind from10 that occasion when you spoke to him? Did he seem to be11 anxious or not anxious?12 A. Yes, he seemed to be -- he certainly was anxious not to13 talk about the row between the Government and the BBC;14 and he did not seem as enthusiastic to talk as perhaps15 he had been on previous occasions.

16 Q. In June 2003, not July for a moment, did you speak to17 Dr Kelly again?18 A. Yes, I seem to recall that I spoke to him when he came19 back from Iraq.20 Q. Did you initiate that contact?21 A. Yes, I did.22 Q. And what was the conversation about?23 A. That was again to find out -- I think -- how his mission24 had gone, and if he had discovered any information that25 might be useful or interesting; and I think again on

701 that occasion he was reluctant to talk.

2 Q. Was the subject of the Gilligan article raised at all3 during this conversation?4 A. No, it was not.5 Q. Now, moving to July, did you talk to Dr Kelly in July,6 that is to say last month?7 A. Yes, I did. Yes.8 Q. And can you recall the first occasion when you spoke to9 him? How did that come about?10 A. The first occasion was in early July when I phoned him11 and it was in fact to ask him out to lunch. The subject12 of the row between the Government and the BBC did come13 up and I did put to him that he might be the source of14 the Andrew Gilligan report.15 Q. This was on the telephone, was it?16 A. Yes.17 Q. What did he say to that?18 A. He said that he not know and he had not spoken to19 Andrew Gilligan.20 Q. It seems a slightly curious answer because he would know21 in one sense if he had spoken to Andrew Gilligan that he22 could not be the source. Did you press him at all?23 A. I did not press him, no.24 Q. Was there any reason why you asked him if people thought25 he might be Mr Gilligan's source?

711 A. Yes, because the evidence that Andrew Gilligan had given2 to the Foreign Affairs Committee,

hearing transcript - 21 august 2003 morning

Documents