Global Policy Forum

By Simon Jeffery

1. Was Dr Kelly mistreated by the MoD?

The evidence

The MoD's personnel director, Richard Hatfield, said he had given "outstanding support" to Dr Kelly but that the scientist's contacts with Andrew Gilligan represented a "fundamental failing". He was asked why had not told Dr Kelly that a decision had been taken that was likely to see him named. Bryan Wells, Dr Kelly's line manager, was questioned on the 46-second phone call that told the scientist his identity had been confirmed. Dr Kelly himself told Nick Rufford, a journalist friend, that he had been put "through the wringer" in interviews with Mr Hatfield and other MoD officials. Mr Hatfield said that, if he had known then what Dr Kelly had disclosed to the media, he would have been "forced to suspend him".

The verdict

Lord Hutton said the MoD was "at fault and has to be criticised" for not telling Dr Kelly its press office would confirm his name, or that it had been confirmed. But he said Dr Kelly was not "an easy man to help or advise" and blamed the scientist for breaking official rules in his contacts with Gilligan.

2. Who took the decision to name him, and why?

Alastair Campbell's diaries reveal that he and Mr Hoon were keen to reveal the source to strike back at Gilligan - or "fuck" him, in the communication chief's own words. But Dr Kelly remained anonymous after Tony Blair expressed concern over the plan. However, Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's most senior civil servant, told the inquiry that the prime minister agreed with the strategy that led to the eventual "outing" of Dr Kelly - in order to put him before MPs' committees - and chaired the meeting that approved it. Mr Blair said it was necessary to confirm the name to journalists once the existence of the source became public to avoid a "great scrabble" and the wrong people being named.

The verdict

Lord Hutton accepted the government's claim that there was no conspiracy to out Dr Kelly, but that events made it unavoidable if it wanted to avoid charges of a cover-up. "The decision by the MoD to confirm Dr Kelly's name was not part of a covert strategy, but based on the view that it would not be sensible to try to conceal the name." He said there was no inconsistency between Sir Kevin's evidence and Mr Blair's, and said the level of press interest in Gilligan's source meant the MoD could not have kept Dr Kelly's name secret indefinitely.

3. Did Campbell sex up the dossier?

Mr Campbell's influence on the dossier, and his relationship with John Scarlett, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), was a recurring theme of the inquiry. Mr Blair said the dossier was "produced and done through the processes of the JIC" and Mr Scarlett agreed. But a memo from a September 18 2002 JIC meeting said that "ownership" lay not with it but with No 10. Mr Campbell admitted to "presentational" influence over the document (he said he wanted it to be drier), though an email to Dr Kelly from Mr A, an intelligence officer, talked about the influence of the "spin merchants of this administration".

In his anonymous testimony he said the dossier's writers were searching for a "form of words which would strengthen certain political objectives" and Brian Jones, a colleague, said certain parts were "over-egged". A September 10 email to intelligence services put out a last call for information, saying that "No 10 through the chairman [Mr Scarlett] want the document to be as strong as possible".

The verdict

Lord Hutton said that it was not improper for No 10 to suggest changes to the dossier and said that suggestions it was sexed up were "unfounded". Although he said Mr Blair's desire for a meaty dossier could have unconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the JIC to produce a stronger assessment than usual, he stated that the dossier was in line with the available evidence.

4. Was Gilligan's story accurate?

The part that said there was disquiet in the intelligence services was borne out by the comments of Dr Jones and Mr A. But the specific claim that No 10 ordered a "sexing-up" in the week before publication is more contentious. Government and intelligence officials said the 45-minute claim appeared in a September 10 or 11 draft (13 to 14 days before publication) and attributed its relatively late appearance to it not surfacing as a piece of raw intelligence until late August.

But evidence from other BBC journalists suggested that Gilligan was not the only one to hear such claims from Dr Kelly. Susan Watts, the Newsnight science editor, said Dr Kelly had mentioned Mr Campbell in connection with the 45-minute claim to her, and Gavin Hewitt said he had talked of "No 10 spin". As for Dr Kelly himself, Rufford said he told him: "I talked to [Gilligan] about the factual stuff. The rest is bullshit."

Gilligan, however, did admit that an early report - at 6.07am - was mistaken to say that the government included the 45-minute claim in the dossier knowing it to be wrong.

The verdict

Lord Hutton cast doubt on Gilligan's recollection of his meeting with Dr Kelly after he lost his notes and typed up an account from memory on his computer. He said the report made "very grave allegations on a subject of great importance" and Gilligan should have put it to the MoD before going on air. He said the allegation that the 45-minute claim was not in the original dossier because it came from a single source was "unfounded", and that even if it was proved false in the future that did not mean the government knew it to be false at the time.

Talk: What do you think?

5. Was the BBC in any way to blame?

Faults were revealed in some processes, the unscripted two-way interview, for example. But the BBC stood by Gilligan's story through its row with the government and the inquiry. Richard Sambrook, head of news, had backed Gilligan, it emerged, despite reservations that while he was "extremely good at finding out information [...] questions of nuance and subtlety in how he presents it are not all that they should be". Such a stance could have exacerbated the dispute: Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC, took a similarly robust stand when he told the governors it was their "legitimate public duty" to speak up against what he described as Mr Campbell's "unprecedented attack on the BBC".

The verdict

Lord Hutton said the BBC should have vetted Gilligan's story more thoroughly and described its editorial system as "defective". The governors were also criticised for failing to check more thoroughly if Gilligan's story - especially the 6.07am broadcast he later admitted was wrong - was backed up by his notes, which he said Gilligan's managers should have checked more thoroughly. On the row between the government and the BBC, he said the tone of Mr Campbell's complaints had "raised the temperature" but a desire to protect the corporation's independence was not incompatible with investigating them.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.