hearing transcript - 13 august 2003 afternoon

8/8/2019 Hearing Transcript - 13 August 2003 Afternoon

1/42

Hearing Transcripts

871 allegations that had been made that morning by2 Mr Gilligan in his broadcasts? Can I just put to you3 the first of the three of them.

4 LORD HUTTON: Mr Knox, it is 1 o'clock. I think this might5 be a convenient time to rise to have our break.6 (1.00 pm)7 (The short adjournment)8 (2.00 pm)9 LORD HUTTON: This morning the Inquiry heard the tape played10 of the recorded conversation which took place between11 Ms Susan Watts and Dr Kelly on 30th May. In order that12 the press and television and radio and, through them,13 the public should know precisely what was said in the14 course of that conversation, copies of the full15 transcript of that conversation were immediately given16 by the Inquiry to the media.

17 Out of respect for Dr Kelly's family, I decided that18 the tape in the possession of the Inquiry which was19 played this morning should not be released to the media20 for the media to broadcast it in their television and21 radio programmes because it is my view that it would be22 insensitive for Dr Kelly's voice on the tape to be23 broadcast on television or on radio, although the same24 objection could not be raised to someone else reading25 out Dr Kelly's words from the transcript.

881 Mr Knox.2 MR KNOX: Mr Hewitt, when you spoke to Dr Kelly on 29th May,3 did you ask him to comment on any of the three specific4 allegations which had been reported by Mr Gilligan that5 morning? I shall list the first of them. The first is6 this: that Downing Street had ordered the dossier to be7 sexed up a week before publication. Did you ask8 Dr Kelly to comment on that allegation at all?9 A. No, I never asked him in those words. I did ask him at10 the outset what his view was about the dossier, but11 I never phrased it in the language which had been used12 on the Today Programme.13 Q. You did mention that in the last week, according to14 Dr Kelly, material was being put in and taken out. Did15 he give you any indication as to who was behind that16 process of putting in and taking out material?17 A. In my view it was a two-way process. He did not give me18 the impression that this was merely material being taken19 in and out on, say, behalf of Downing Street. He gave20 me the impression that life in that final week was very21 frenetic, with material coming in, material being taken22 out. But he did not apply to that a sense that this was23 against the Government in some way. He felt that this24 was -- he was just telling me this was a very busy25 period in which substantially the dossier was changed.

891 Q. But it was not specifically at the behest of2 10 Downing Street?3 A. No, although that actual part of the conversation


2/42

4 happened after he had already said to me "No. 10 spin5 came into play".6 Q. Did you put to Dr Kelly the suggestion that in the7 process of transformation in the last week, the8 45 minute claim was added for the first time?9 A. No, I did not.

10 Q. And finally did you put to Dr Kelly what Mr Gilligan had11 said, namely that the Government probably knew that this12 information, i.e. the 45 minute claim, was wrong?13 A. No, I did not put that. I said to him: what is your14 view about the 45 minute claim and whether it was15 inserted into the dossier against the wishes of the16 Intelligence Services, as I referred to earlier. And he17 came back with words to the effect of: well, I would not18 go along with that, I would not go as far as that. And,19 as I indicated earlier, we then moved the subject of the20 conversation because I felt I was not going to be able21 to get significant backing from him to report on that22 during the news that night, which I did not.

23 Q. Was there any specific reason why you did not put the24 specific allegations made by Mr Gilligan?25 A. No, there was no particular reason. In agreeing to

901 follow up on this, I actually wanted to, if you like,2 establish for myself a baseline in relation to this3 story; and the emphasis in my questioning was to4 discover whether an official such as Dr Kelly, who5 clearly had some standing, whether he felt unease about6 the language used in that dossier. So in a sense we7 were following our own agenda rather than trying to8 establish or not establish what had been reported on the

9 Today Programme that morning.10 Q. Did it cross your mind that you might be talking to the11 same source as the story for Mr Gilligan's piece?12 A. Never.13 Q. How long did your conversation last with Mr Kelly?14 A. Around 10 minutes.15 Q. We know that later Dr Kelly attended a Foreign Affairs16 Committee on 15th July. Can we call up FAC/4/7? It17 appears from that, and we shall go to the reference in18 a moment, it appears from that that he was asked whether19 he had had any contact with you around this time and he20 said "no". You can pick that up, I think, from rather21 near the end of page 7. You can see the question 44:22 "Ms Stuart: You have neither met nor talked to her23 [that is Ms Watts] since?24 "Dr Kelly: I have spoken to her on the telephone25 but I have not met her face-to-face.

911 "Ms Stuart: When have you talked to her on the2 telephone?3 "Dr Kelly: I would have spoken to her about four or4 five times.5 "Ms Stuart: During May at all?6 "Dr Kelly: During May? I cannot precisely7 remember. I was abroad for a fair part of the time in8 May, but it is possible, yes.9 "Ms Stuart: Have you had any conversations or


3/42

10 meetings with Gavin Hewitt?11 "Dr Kelly: Not that I am aware of, no, I am pretty12 sure I have not."13 Did you see Dr Kelly's interview with the FAC at all14 as it was being broadcast live?15 A. No, I did not when it was broadcast live. It was only

16 in fact subsequently, some time afterwards, that17 somebody said: do you know your name was mentioned at18 the FAC? I asked him what context and clearly was19 surprised. And on that Dr Kelly was incorrect.20 Q. Are you able to give any explanation as to why he might21 have got that wrong?22 A. No, I cannot begin to think why he did. Maybe it is23 possible he had a lot of conversations within that24 period but I do not have a ready explanation, no.25 Q. Did you ever speak to Dr Kelly again after 29th May?

921 A. No, that was the one and only conversation during this

2 period that I had with him.3 Q. Did you speak to anyone else on 29th May for the4 purposes of your report that evening?5 A. I did. After I had finished the conversation with6 Dr Kelly, I went to see Dame Pauline Neville-Jones at7 her house to record an interview. I felt this was quite8 important because she was a former head of the JIC, the9 Joint Intelligence Committee. I wanted to see if we10 could try and corroborate in some ways what Dr Kelly had11 said. And I had already made up in my mind that I would12 only discuss on the news that night the more broad13 question, the more broad assertions he had made about14 language in the dossier. I did not feel I had made any

15 real progress in the area of the 45 minute claim.16 If you look at what I broadcast that night, you will17 see I very much limited to this question that he18 believed that the language had been put over in a very19 black and white way. I obviously use his quote to me20 that No. 10 spin did come into play, so --21 Q. What did Dame Pauline tell you?22 A. Well, this was both on camera and off camera, and on23 camera I did at one point say to her: at the time that24 the September dossier was published, did you hear25 anything from your contacts in the intelligence

931 community, any expressions of concern or unease? And2 I pushed her on this and I asked a supplementary on it.3 And she came back to me and said: yes, I did hear some4 mutterings, some murmurings.5 Q. Was there anything off camera that was said which was6 not repeated on camera of relevance?7 A. Pretty much what she said to me off camera was recorded8 in the interview. The interview lasted for about,9 I suppose, six or seven minutes, maybe a touch longer.10 Pretty much, no, what she said off camera she said on11 camera.12 Q. Can I ask you to look at BBC/7/111? This is13 a transcript, as I understand it, of your report on the14 BBC 10 o'clock News that night, is that right?15 A. That is right, yes.


4/42

16 Q. Would you mind reading into the record the whole of the17 report, that is to say the whole of the words spoken?18 A. You want me to read the whole report.19 Q. Yes.20 A. Where would you like me to begin?21 Q. Fiona Bruce.

22 A. "Here, MPs are calling for an inquiry after accusations23 that the government's dossier on Iraq's weapons was24 distorted by Downing Street. Security sources have told25 the BBC they believe parts of the report overstated the

941 threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Downing Street though2 has dismissed the claims. Our Special Correspondent3 Gavin Hewitt investigates."4 This is now when the report begins:5 "This is really a story about trust. It begins here6 at MI6, the headquarters of the Intelligence Service.7 Some of those who work here are said to be uneasy about

8 what the government did with information they passed on9 about Iraq. There were claims today when Downing Street10 received the dossier it wanted it toughened up. When it11 was eventually published it did contain some dramatic12 warnings".13 We then had a clip from Tony Blair talking to the14 Commons:15 "That he has existing and active military plans for16 the use of chemical and biological weapons which could17 be activated within 45 minutes."18 Back to commentary from me:19 "The Government acknowledged today that the20 45-minute threat was based on a single source. It

21 wasn't corroborated. This has rattled some MPs who are22 calling for an investigation."23 A clip from the Liberal Democrat MP24 Menzies Campbell:25 "If you take intelligence and massage it for

951 political purposes, essentially you turn it into2 propaganda. If the allegations are true, there will be3 considerable anxiety in all branches of the security4 services."5 Back again to me:6 "The government said today that every word within7 the dossier was the work of the security services.8 There had been no pressure from Number Ten."9 A brief clip from the Government Minister10 Adam Ingram:11 "All the information was based upon well-informed12 information."13 Back to me:14 "Others with experience in the intelligence15 community say there were some murmurings about the final16 wording of the dossier."17 A clip from Dame Pauline Neville-Jones:18 "The professionals are cautious. They'll only put19 things in if they are confident [-- that they are20 confident] about. I think when they got into the21 political part of the machine, into the government


5/42

22 information services, they said to themselves it won't23 convince anybody. We need to beef up the language in a24 way it carries conviction."25 Finally, I talk to camera:

96

1 "I've spoken to one of those consulted on the2 dossier. Six months work was apparently involved. In3 the final week before publication some material was4 taken out and some put. His judgment, some spin from5 Number Ten did come into play. Even so the intelligence6 community remains convinced weapons of mass destruction7 will be found in Iraq. Only then will all the doubts go8 away."9 Q. Mr Hewitt, thank you very much for that. There are one10 or two questions I wanted to ask you about this. The11 first is this: in the introduction by Fiona Bruce she12 says in the second sentence:13 "Security sources have told the BBC ... " this.

14 Are you able to explain why she uses the phrase15 "security sources"? Was that at your instigation or for16 some other reason?17 A. It was not at my instigation. I think she was probably18 referring to the fact that both earlier in the day, in19 the sense of what was related in the Today Programme and20 the fact that I was going to report another source, what21 was at the time presumed to be a second source, that22 there were really reservations about the dossier.23 Q. Then, just moving to your paragraph immediately24 afterwards, that is to say "this is really a story about25 trust", this is presumably based on what Mr Gilligan had

971 said, you are not really basing this on what Dr Kelly2 had said?3 A. I think if you look carefully at this, this is referring4 more to the fact that there are now out there these5 claims that there were people within the Intelligence6 Services who were said to be uneasy about what the7 Government did with information. At this stage I am8 referring to what has been reported earlier in the day,9 the fact that this story is running. It is only at the10 end of the item that if you like I give my own11 information.12 Q. The extract from the Prime Minister's speech is, as13 I understand it, a quote from a speech he gave to14 Parliament on 24th September 2002?15 A. I presume that is right. I cannot remember the date.16 It certainly was from his Parliamentary speech, yes.17 Q. Going over the page, the final paragraph where you are18 speaking, that is presumably your summary of what19 Dr Kelly had told you?20 A. Exactly, yes.21 Q. Can I just ask you to go to page BBC/7/113? You will22 see on this page three e-mails and the e-mail at the23 bottom of the page is the earliest in time, dated24 27th June, 8.34, written to Richard Sambrook. You say,25 in the first paragraph:

98


6/42

1 "Richard,2 "Thought it might be helpful to mention my3 conversations re 'sexed up' dossiers. On the day that4 Andrew G broke the story on the Today programme5 Mark Popescu asked me whether we could add anything for6 the 10.00 news. Without talking to Andrew I spoke to a

7 very respected individual who had been consulted on and8 involved in the preparation of the September dossier.9 He said that dossier had been based almost entirely on10 UK sources."11 Pausing there, Mr Hewitt, is it right to say that it12 is based almost entirely on UK sources or based13 exclusively on UK sources?14 A. I clearly wrote "entirely" there. I would have to look15 back at my notes but my recollection of what Dr Kelly16 said was very much more "entirely". I know I did ask17 him. I said was this -- there was a reason for me18 asking it because I know there were questions raised19 about some of the intelligence which had been coming

20 from the Pentagon. So I wanted to clarify whether the21 UK dossier essentially was coming from shared sources,22 and I got the impression from Dr Kelly that he believed23 that this September dossier was based almost exclusively24 on UK sources.25 Q. Almost exclusively or exclusively?

991 A. Almost exclusively, in the sense that he -- I mean, he2 believed that it all came from UK sources. There might3 have been a slight qualification but not a large one.4 Q. Then you continue:5 "He said it had been prepared over a six month

6 period but that in the final week it has become frenetic7 with material being taken out and material being added.8 In his view 'No. 10 spin did come into play'."9 Then you continue.10 Effectively this is how you would now recall the11 position?12 A. Yes, absolutely.13 Q. Can you explain, very briefly, what the purpose of this14 e-mail was?15 A. Yes, absolutely. This was around the time when it was16 clear that a major row was developing between the BBC17 and the Government over the reporting of this issue.18 I knew that Richard Sambrook was in the process of19 drafting a very considerable reply to Alastair Campbell20 and to the Government and I thought, in those21 circumstances, that it was right for him to know that22 the 10 o'clock News report that I had done might be23 helpful to him as part of the evidence that he was going24 to give to Alastair Campbell in that letter. So I got25 in touch with him and said: look, you may be interested

1001 to recall that or to know that. And this is2 essentially, I think, what this e-mail refers to.3 Q. You then see, in a reply e-mail a little bit further up4 the page from Mr Sambrook to you, thanking you for the5 information, he asks you for:6 "... broad sense of the seniority of your source."


7/42

7 A. That is right, yes.8 Q. Then at the top you reply.9 A. "Richard, yes please use anything from that first10 conversation in your reply to Campbell. The man was my11 main source for the Ten piece and the person who told me12 'No. 10 spin did come into play'. Privately I am, of

13 course, happy to tell you precisely who he was."14 Pausing there for a moment, did you ever tell15 Mr Sambrook precisely who the source was privately?16 A. I did but later on.17 Q. When you say later on, how much later on?18 A. On the day that Dr Kelly was found to be dead.19 Q. You then continue:20 "He was consulted on the dossier and had intimate21 knowledge of how it came together. He is senior and is22 recognised as one of the principal experts in the field23 of biological/chemical weapons. He has a role in24 government at a senior level but not at MI6."25 Did Mr Sambrook press you any further on this

1011 description once you had told him that?2 A. No.3 Q. Did you ever speak to Mr Gilligan about this story?4 A. No, I never spoke to him about his source. I think5 I had, possibly -- I had one conversation with6 Andrew Gilligan when I met him at a media Guardian7 conference but I did not ask him who his source was and8 he never told me who his source was.9 Q. What about Ms Watts; did you ever speak to her about10 this?11 A. No, I have never had a conversation with her.

12 Q. Did you receive any complaints about your piece from the13 Government?14 A. No, none at all.15 Q. Or did you hear about any complaints from the16 Government?17 A. No, none at all.18 Q. Is there anything you wish to add about the19 circumstances of Dr Kelly's death?20 A. No, I am afraid I know nothing about that at all.21 MR KNOX: Thank you very much indeed.22 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed Mr Hewitt.23 A. Thank you.24 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Sambrook, please, my Lord.25

1021 MR RICHARD SAMBROOK (called)2 Examined by MR DINGEMANS3 Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?4 A. Yes. Richard Sambrook.5 Q. Was is your occupation?6 A. I am the director of news at the BBC.7 Q. How long have you been with the BBC?8 A. 23 years.9 Q. How long have you been in your present position?10 A. Since March 2001.11 Q. Can you give us a broad outline of your responsibilities12 as director of news?


8/42

13 A. Yes. I am responsible for all BBC's news programmes on14 television, radio and on the Internet, both in terms of15 their content but also in terms of management of them,16 finances, personnel, strategy and so on.17 Q. Do you have any assistants, a deputy or anything like18 that?

19 A. Yes. I have a deputy, Mark Damazer, who deputises for20 me across the full range of my responsibilities, and21 then I have a number of heads of department who focus on22 different areas of programme making.23 Q. And what are those departments?24 A. Radio news; television news; on-line, which is the25 Internet; news gathering, which is the reporters and

1031 correspondents and foreign bureau; political programmes2 and current affairs.3 Q. Do you have meetings with these persons?4 A. Yes, I meet with all of those heads of department for

5 regular routine meetings but there is a daily editorial6 meeting at 8.50 in which the BBC's output for the7 previous 24 hours and the next 24 hours is discussed.8 Q. What do you have to say about the importance of sources9 for your reporting?10 A. Well, obviously sources are vital to our reporting. We11 need to know that they are credible, that they know what12 they are talking about and we have to have confidence in13 them.14 Q. And specifically anonymous sources?15 A. Well, anonymous sources are necessary in some forms of16 journalism. Some people will not give us information17 which we believe to be of public interest, unless they

18 are assured of some confidentiality. They would not19 bring that information forward otherwise.20 Editorially, it is important that we give them21 assurances that will protect their confidentiality. If22 we did not do so then information that is potentially of23 public interest would not come to light.24 Q. Do you have any guidelines that deal with such sources?25 A. Yes, BBC has a book of producer guidelines and it does

1041 cover this issue.2 Q. Can we look at BBC/7/99? Is this the beginning of your3 relevant guideline?4 A. Yes, it is.5 Q. Can you tell us about the distinctions between6 attributable, non-attributable and off the record? We7 have heard a number of different interpretations.8 A. Yes. "Attributable" I think means that you can quote9 somebody and name them. I think generally10 "non-attributable" and "off the record" are often used11 interchangeably, although I think strictly there would12 be some difference between them. "Off the record" would13 be purely for context of background and14 "non-attributable" meant you might quote them but not15 name a person. But they do tend to be used16 interchangeably.17 Q. Attributable, you can name and identify?18 A. Yes.


9/42

19 Q. Non-attributable, you can use the information but20 without identifying the person?21 A. Yes.22 Q. And off the record, unless it is being used23 interchangeably, just background?24 A. Yes, but I do think off the record and unattributable

25 are often used synonymously.

1051 Q. The media is a massive business. Are there any2 guidelines that help journalists about this?3 A. There are no formal guidelines that apply across the4 media. I think it is custom and practice.5 Q. Although there is a difference between non-attributable6 and off the record, they sometimes get muddled up?7 A. Yes.8 Q. You had a history of complaints, I think, from9 Alastair Campbell about the BBC reporting --10 A. Yes.

11 Q. -- that you have referred to. Can I take you to some of12 those? You will understand, I hope, if I do not go13 through every single one. BBC/4/131. What do we see14 here?15 A. This was a letter written as you see on 19th March about16 the BBC's coverage of the Commons vote before the war.17 Q. And it makes a number of points and continues for some18 four pages. What stage had relationships reached19 between Downing Street, Alastair Campbell on one side,20 and the BBC, yourself, on the other?21 A. Well there was clearly some tension between us which22 reflected frankly the sort of relations we have with all23 governments in time of war where the BBC's reporting,

24 which attempts to be fully independent and reflect25 a wide spectrum of views, sometimes produces tensions

1061 with government. In this case, public opinion at the2 time was very deeply divided and our programmes had3 sought to reflect the full range of public opinion.4 I think Downing Street were uncomfortable with the way5 we were presenting some of those views.6 Q. Can I take you to BBC/4/145, which I think is another7 document that you have referred to. What is this?8 A. Well, that is another letter to me from9 Alastair Campbell. I cannot quite read the text.10 Q. "In some reports, I have noticed Iraqi Television is11 being used virtually as an objective source, much as the12 foreign media might use material from the BBC. Iraqi13 Television is part and parcel of the Saddam regime. It14 is under his total control. Therefore, surely, anything15 said or shown should be treated with real scepticism.16 "Could I ask what guidance is given to reporters and17 editors about the use of material supplied by Iraqi18 Television?"19 A. Yes.20 Q. You were receiving regular letters, were you, from21 Mr Campbell?22 A. Yes, we were.23 Q. If we go to BBC/4/146 we can see a letter the next day.24 Here the complaint related to Mr Gilligan.


10/42

25 A. Yes.

1071 Q. And the damage that had been done to the Republican2 Guard.3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you accept that any of the complaints raised were5 well-founded?6 A. Not at this stage. In fact, I felt one had to look7 quite carefully into the complaints because quite often8 they were selective in their use of the scripts which9 they were complaining about. I think in this particular10 case the phrase he was complaining about was preceded by11 a phrase which said something like "we can't tell"; in12 other words, the full quote of Andrew Gilligan's script13 would have satisfied the point that Mr Campbell was14 seeking to make. So my view of it -- we of course take15 any letter from Downing Street very seriously -- was16 that we had to look very carefully at exactly what was

17 being complained about and compare it to what we were18 broadcasting.19 Q. Can I take you to one letter where you do at least20 appear to have accepted some fault, that is21 4th April 2003, BBC/4/158. Can you tell us what this22 letter is?23 A. Yes, Alastair Campbell had complained again about24 a report from Andrew Gilligan who had concluded a live25 report on News 24 from Baghdad with the phrase something

1081 about "more rubbish from cent comm", meaning central2 command. He had initially complained to me suggesting

3 this had been on Radio 4 and we had search all of4 Radio 4's output and had been unable to find it. He5 then clarified it was actually on News 24.6 I agreed with him that the phrase "rubbish from cent7 comm" was unacceptable for a BBC correspondent to use8 and acknowledged that.9 Q. You say at the bottom of the letter the:10 "... particular phrase was unacceptable, which I11 regret, and will take up with Andrew Gilligan."12 Did you take it up with Andrew Gilligan?13 A. Yes, I believe I did.14 Q. When did you take it up with him?15 A. I do not remember the precise date but I do remember16 having a conversation that said occasionally he needed17 to be more careful, even under the circumstances in18 which he was reporting from Baghdad, which were of19 considerable duress, at his use of language.20 Q. I am right in saying this, am I: that you considered21 some of the complaints made by Alastair Campbell as22 simply unfair? Can I look at BBC/4/28.23 How would you describe this document?24 A. I think this one goes back to the war in Afghanistan and25 it was a list from Downing Street of what they believed

1091 to be things that we should not have said or were wrong.2 You will see it is headlined "Catalogue of Lies". But3 it for example suggests we should not be talking about


11/42

4 Taliban civilian casualties or we should not be putting5 a death toll on civilian casualties and said we should6 not be reporting that and there was not evidence. And7 I think that was unreasonable.8 Q. Was this the general background against which9 Alastair Campbell's complaint came to be made to you?

10 A. Yes. The only communication I ever had with11 Alastair Campbell were these kinds of faxes and letters.12 Q. You have never met him apart from --13 A. I have met him I think on two occasions. Once was in14 a general briefing. Once was at the lunch during July,15 which I think we may come to. But again, we did not16 have a conversation there.17 Q. The week of the broadcast of Andrew Gilligan's piece on18 28th May, were you in this country or not?19 A. No. Could I make a correction? There were three20 occasions in which I met Alastair Campbell. Again,21 during the Afghanistan war he called me into Downing22 Street to discuss the use of the Osama bin Laden videos

23 with the heads of ITN News and Sky News as well. So24 there were three occasions on which I met him.25 No, at the end of May I was on holiday or moving

1101 house for that week of the original Today Programme2 broadcast. Following that, I then went to Moscow for3 three days where the BBC was opening a new bureau, so4 I did not return to the office until Thursday, the 5th.5 Q. When you returned were you made aware of the broadcast?6 A. Only because I saw some of the correspondence from7 Downing Street where Ann Shevas, who works in the8 Downing Street press office, had written to my deputy

9 Mark Damazer.10 Q. Can I take you to CAB/1/154? Is this the letter to11 which you are referring?12 A. Yes, it is.13 Q. You can see from that letter the gist of the complaint.14 How would you summarise it?15 A. Well I think it made a broad denial of the allegations16 but then particularly went on to complain about the17 basis on which we had been given the advance notice of18 the story and the use made of the interview with19 Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces Minister.20 Q. The reply is at CAB/1/156. This was not drafted by you21 or by Mr Damazer?22 A. No. This was drafted by Steve Mitchell who was the head23 of radio news who reports to me.24 Q. You were away and I think Mr Damazer was busy that day?25 A. I was out of the office that day, yes.

1111 Q. The gist of his reply is a denial that anything has gone2 wrong; is that right?3 A. Yes, he outlines what we understood to be our contacts4 with Downing Street or with the Government in advance of5 the programme and our running of the Government denials6 in the wake of the Gilligan report.7 Q. And at this stage, had you seen any notes or comments8 made by Mr Gilligan himself?9 A. Not by Mr Gilligan, no.


12/42

10 Q. Can I take you to a document dated 5th June 2003 at11 BBC/5/58? What is this document?12 A. This is an e-mail from Stephen Whittle who is the BBC's13 controller of editorial policy.14 Q. For those of us who do not work in the BBC, can you tell15 us why that is different from what you do?

16 A. Yes. Editorial policy; Stephen Whittle if you like owns17 and oversees the producer guidelines and editorial18 policy across the whole of the BBC, not just news, all19 programmes, and he works independently of any programme20 making.21 Q. What was the reason for this report?22 A. Well, as I understand it, the director general had asked23 Mr Whittle to run through how Andrew Gilligan's report24 had come to air and what checks had been made on it.25 Q. Why had the director general become involved?

1121 A. I do not know. I think it was because at a regular

2 meeting that the director general has with Mr Whittle3 they had raised the story and Greg had asked him to look4 into it.5 Q. And at the bottom of the page, there is a discussion6 about how the live two-way at 6.10 was discussed,7 written overnight and the details of that. And then how8 events move on during a three hour programme and just9 over the page how the denial came to be made.10 A. Yes.11 Q. And there is a passage at the end of that, the12 prepenultimate paragraph:13 "So the report resulted from two separate but14 related information sources."

15 A. Yes.16 Q. Can you help at all on that?17 A. Only if you can refer back to the previous page.18 Q. Yes, 58.19 A. Clearly one of them was Andrew Gilligan's source who we20 now know to be Dr Kelly.21 Q. Is it the first paragraph of the e-mail or just after22 the first paragraph:23 "About a month ago the programme was picking up24 signals ..."?25 A. Yes. I was going to say I think the other element which

1131 I would not characterise as a single source was that for2 some time a number of journalists in the BBC and3 elsewhere had some unattributable briefings from members4 of the security services expressing some unease at the5 way intelligence had been presented in public.6 Q. When it says "two separate but related information7 sources", what it means is one individual and then these8 general concerns?9 A. Yes, I would personally describe that as a context or10 a background of concerns rather than calling it another11 source.12 Q. We are not here to argue about people's use of language13 in that respect. So it was relating to the general14 background?15 A. Yes.


13/42

16 Q. And then the specific source. There was no other source17 as far as you are aware for the Today Programme?18 A. No.19 Q. And at this stage, now that a bit more investigation has20 been carried out, has anyone asked to see Mr Gilligan's21 notes of his conversation with the source?

22 A. His programme editor has, yes. I mean the process of23 editorial supervision for an item would be through the24 programme's output editor up to the programme editor, in25 this case Kevin Marsh, and in this case I would normally

1141 expect him to have had a conversation about this item2 before it was broadcast, including some understanding of3 how well sourced it was and the reliability and4 credibility of the source and what other corroboration5 there might be.6 Q. The dispute did not go away; and the day after that memo7 had been produced, can we turn to a letter dated

8 6th June 2003, BBC/5/60; and here I hope you will see9 a letterhead, "Dear Richard", that is to you. It is10 again from Alastair Campbell.11 A. Yes.12 Q. He is writing to complain about what he calls13 Andrew Gilligan's irresponsible reporting of what he14 claims to be information from intelligence sources.15 Mr Campbell said that Mr Gilligan continued to16 display an extraordinary ignorance about intelligence17 issues. He refers to the reasons for that comment.18 He continues, on page 61, about complaints on19 weapons of mass destruction reporting and talks about20 the way in which JIC assessments are put together. Then

21 on page 62 he referred you to your BBC guidelines.22 I have read a little bit more of this correspondence23 than perhaps I wanted to. There appear to be frequent24 references to the BBC producer guidelines in your25 correspondence with Mr Campbell, perhaps both ways, is

1151 that a fair analysis?2 A. Yes, it is. I mean the producer guidelines encapsulate3 the editorial standards to which the BBC is held to4 account and they are publicly available.5 Q. And he identified breaches, so he said, of the producer6 guidelines; and he continued on to page 637 characterising Mr Gilligan's attempts to justify the8 story by referring to what had been said by Clare Short9 and Robin Cook and suggesting that Adam Ingram had10 corroborated the 45 minutes claim. He said this at the11 bottom:12 "You will, I imagine, seek to defend your reporting,13 as you always do. In this case, you would be defending14 the indefensible. On the word of a single,15 uncorroborated source, you have allowed one reporter to16 drive the BBC's coverage. We are left wondering why you17 have guidelines at all, given that they are so18 persistently breached without any comeback whatsoever."19 What are the remedies that I might have if20 I considered that the BBC's reporting had breached21 guidelines?


14/42

22 A. Well if you did not receive a satisfactory response by23 writing directly to the programme concerned, there is24 a programme complaints unit in the BBC which reports to25 the director general who can investigate complaints,

116

1 again independently of any production area. That can2 make a decision about whether that complaint is3 justified or not. Those findings are published and if4 you are unhappy with the findings of that unit in5 reporting to the director general, there is a right of6 appeal to the board of governors.7 Q. Was this complaint taken seriously?8 A. We take all of the complaints from Downing Street9 seriously, yes.10 Q. Can I take you to BBC/5/66 which is an e-mail dated11 9th June 2003. Can you identify for us who the parties12 are? Kevin Marsh; I think we were told yesterday who he13 was.

14 A. Kevin Marsh is the editor of the Today Programme.15 Stephen Mitchell is his line manager, the head of radio16 news.17 Q. Perhaps you can read for us the first five paragraphs.18 A. "I started to look at this point by point ... but it's19 all drivel and, frankly, it'd be easy to get as confused20 as Campbell is. The man is flapping in the wind.21 "I'm looking back now at what we said on22 24th September, when the dossier was published - as23 ever, the recording has gone missing ... probably lost24 in the multitude up in Mark's office.25 "The key facts are these.

1171 "We stand by the original (29th May) story and the2 processes that got it to air. Andrew's source is known3 to us: It is a source that has been utterly reliable in4 the past.5 "Apart from the one key fact - the '45-minute'6 claim - the rest of what the source told us on this7 occasion (about unease within the security services) was8 consistent with what we were hearing from a number of9 sources within the security services."10 Q. Then he goes on, I hope I summarise it accurately, to11 say he made an editorial judgment to produce the story12 and deals with the immediate response from13 Downing Street.14 Now, in that aspect, by this stage has anyone gone15 back to compare what Andrew Gilligan has actually said16 on air with the notes that he made from his17 conversations with Dr Kelly?18 A. Only Kevin Marsh would have done, I think, at that19 stage. I think at that stage it was only Kevin who20 would have known and would have discussed with Andrew21 what was in the note.22 Q. We then come to the BBC response which is BBC/5/71.23 What is this?24 A. That is my response to Alastair Campbell.25 Q. Your letter of 11th June 2003 to Alastair Campbell?

118


15/42

1 A. Yes.2 Q. And you effectively, for the reasons you set out in3 that, rebut his complaint?4 A. Yes.5 Q. And I hope I will be forgiven if I do not go through6 your reasoning, but you also talk, on page 72, about

7 a right of reply?8 A. Yes.9 Q. And at the bottom of the letter, you write, in the final10 paragraph, can you just read that?11 A. "On which point it is worth going back to stage 1. We12 have not suggested that the 45-minute point was invented13 by anyone in Downing Street against the wishes of anyone14 in the intelligence community. We have suggested that15 there are pertinent and serious questions to be asked16 about the presentation of the intelligence material -17 a rather different point and one which I am not18 convinced your letter recognises."19 Q. Had you, at this stage, seen a transcript of

20 Andrew Gilligan's remarks on 29th May?21 A. Yes, I had.22 Q. And you had seen that at least earlier on in the23 broadcast, at 6.07 -- and he has explained the24 circumstances in which he came to make that -- that he25 had said that the material had been produced and

1191 inserted at a time when the Government knew that it was2 wrong. It was not a claim, as he pointed out later,3 repeated.4 A. That line was in there but I would not have said5 I particularly focused on it at this stage.

6 Q. You had not, as it were, identified that as a matter of7 concern?8 A. No, and nor had Downing Street in their complaints. To9 be fair, their complaints at this stage were a general10 rebuttal, in the widest sense. They had complained11 about pre-notification, about the producer guidelines12 and about the description of the JIC, but they had not13 identified that phrase as a particular problem at this14 stage.15 Q. It did not take long to get a reply, at BBC/5/73. Here16 Mr Campbell writes identifying issues that he says you17 have not responded to, in paragraph 1:18 "Firstly, you have not answered my questions about19 Andrew Gilligan's obvious ignorance about intelligence20 issue. So I repeat - do you accept that what21 Andrew Gilligan said last week about the composition and22 role of the JIC was inaccurate? What, if anything do23 you intend to do about it?24 "Secondly, on the '45-minute' claim, you acknowledge25 it was indeed from a single source, for which I am

1201 grateful. I therefore believed it does conflict with2 your guideline ..."3 He refers to the Intelligence and Security Committee4 report at the bottom of the page, and he again deals5 with other coverage.6 This provoked more internal e-mails. Can I take you


16/42

7 to BBC/5/90. This, in fact, is your comment on the8 Today Programme.9 A. Well, this is after Alastair Campbell's appearance at10 the Foreign Affairs Committee some time later.11 Q. Can I then go to your response, BBC/5/76? Sorry about12 that. This is your response in which you deal with his

13 complaints or try and answer his complaints?14 A. Yes. I mean, our view was that his first letter on the15 6th was -- although Mr Campbell's inimitable style, at16 that stage we did not believe we needed to engage17 point-by-point with his complaint but rather assert the18 reasons on which he had broadcasted. When he came back19 so quickly to re-emphasise the points he wanted20 addressed, we attempted to deal with them in more21 detail.22 Q. Can I ask you to look at BBC/5/70? What is this? At23 the top there is an e-mail from Stephen Mitchell to24 Mark Damazer. Stephen Mitchell you have told us is head25 of radio news.

1211 A. Yes.2 Q. Mark Damazer your deputy. What does it say there?3 A. "For your information I asked Kevin to look back quickly4 at what AG ..." I cannot quite read it.5 Q. "Said".6 A. "... when the September dossier was published. This is7 his reply."8 Q. The reply was then from Kevin Marsh to Stephen Mitchell?9 A. Yes.10 Q. Perhaps you can just read us the first two paragraphs of11 Kevin Marsh's comments?

12 A. "I've just listened back to Gilligan on 24th September -13 and reread Campbell's point. I am more convinced than14 I was before that he is on the run. Or gone bonkers.15 Or both.16 "When Campbell says that Gilligan said there was17 'little that was new' in the dossier, he is half right:18 that was Gilligan's (and everyone else's) judgment on19 the document as a whole. However, AG picked out20 a number of things that were new - though as he said21 several times, his judgments were based on a 30-minute22 reading of the dossier."23 Q. And I have shown, I hope, a reasonably fair summary of24 some of these letters passing between both parties on25 which points are made by both sides, and some of the

1221 internal documents. Is this a reasonable2 characterisation: the BBC management at this stage had3 got to the situation where they were just fed up with4 the complaints that were being made against them?5 A. I do not think that is quite fair, no. I would like to6 say that although Kevin has a colourful turn of phrase7 in internal e-mails to his colleagues, I do not think8 some of that tone characterises our approach or view of9 these complaints from Downing Street. We always take10 complaints from Downing Street extremely seriously. It11 was true we had a very high volume of them during the12 war, as indeed we generally tend to have at moments of


17/42

13 tension, such as war or elections and so on. We do take14 them seriously but we did believe that we, from15 experience, had to look very closely at what was being16 complained about and in what terms because it is not17 always straightforward or clear cut.18 Q. After your letter of 16th June 2003, matters appear, at

19 least on the correspondence, to go quiet until20 25th June 2003 which is when Alastair Campbell gives21 evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee?22 A. That is right. I had no response to the reply to my23 letter of his on the 12th.24 Q. You have written on 16th June. Then I know it is not25 very long but there is at least nine days without any

1231 further correspondence between you.2 A. Yes, it seemed to me to have been a lull.3 Q. FAC/2/279, if we may. What do we have here? Do you4 recognise this?

5 A. Yes, this is a transcript of Mr Campbell's evidence to6 the Foreign Affairs Committee.7 Q. And in the course of his evidence here he turns to deal8 with the September dossier and his role in it. Then at9 the bottom of page 279 he says this:10 "The allegation against me is that we helped the11 Prime Minister persuade Parliament and the country to go12 into conflict on the basis of a lie. I think that is13 a pretty serious allegation. It has been denied by the14 Prime Minister, it has been denied by the Chairman of15 the Joint Intelligence Committee, it has been denied by16 the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and it has17 been denied by the heads of the intelligence agencies

18 involved, and yet the BBC continue to stand by that19 story.20 "Richard Ottaway: You believe that time will prove21 you right on that one?22 "Mr Campbell: I know that we are right in relation23 to that 45-minute point. It is completely and totally24 untrue, and I do not use this word --25 "Richard Ottaway: I am talking about the substance.

1241 "Mr Campbell: It is actually a lie."2 Then they go back on to dealing with the substance.3 At question 994, further down the page, Mr Ottaway makes4 the perceptive comment that one of you is wrong and5 Mr Campbell says:6 "Mr Campbell: I know who is right and who is wrong.7 The BBC are wrong. We have apologised in relation to8 Dr al-Marishi [that is in relation to what I think has9 been called the February dodgy dossier] and I think it10 is about time the BBC apologised to us in relation to11 the 45-minute point."12 Mr Ottaway says he will leave that to the BBC if you13 do not mind. That was evidence. You responded to that14 evidence, did you?15 A. Yes. I heard about it, I did not actually watch or hear16 Mr Campbell's evidence. I was telephoned late17 afternoon, I was out of London and was told that he had18 broadly attacked the BBC in his evidence, and I asked


18/42

19 for parts of his evidence to be faxed to me. We were at20 a management meeting in Surrey and read the comments he21 had made about the BBC.22 Q. Can we turn to CAB/1/337. This is, so you know, part of23 a transcript of the Today Programme on 26th June 2003.24 So the next day. About the third paragraph:

25 "So the word disproportionate [this is Mr Naughtie

1251 talking to you] which he used in describing the way that2 we dealt with critics and on this programme and others,3 you are suggesting that there was no disproportionate4 treatment of criticism as being better news than the5 other side of the story?"6 You say:7 "No I don't believe there was at all. I mean the8 way BBC's, conducts its journalism is to ask questions,9 raise issues and debate them openly with a wide range of10 views and that, that's how we've approached the war in

11 the way that we approach everything else."12 And then:13 "And the argument that as a consequence of as he14 would put it having been proved wrong, the, the, the15 tendency is to point out failures or difficulties in16 Iraq now by way of justifying a previous view."17 You say:18 "No, well all we have done since then is to raise19 questions which have been brought to our attention by20 people we know to be senior and credible sources in the21 Intelligence Service and it's an issue of public22 interest."23 You were referring I think there, in particular, to

24 Mr Gilligan's story?25 A. I was. I made an error there in ascribing him to the

1261 Intelligence Services. I did not, at that stage, know2 who Mr Gilligan's source was and indeed I had not3 discussed it with Andrew Gilligan. By this stage, the4 way that the debate about his original report had taken5 off was that Intelligence sources were being routinely6 used not only by the BBC, but by many other people as7 well. It had got into the bloodstream, and I think8 I subconsciously made an assumption there which I should9 not have done.10 Q. Just picked it up, and at the bottom of the page:11 "Richard Sambrook: I'm entirely satisfied [and this12 is specifically in relation to Mr Gilligan, source] that13 it is a senior, credible and reliable source and frankly14 Jim I don't think the BBC needs to be taught lessons in15 the use of sources by a communications department which16 plagiarised a 12 year old thesis and distributed it ..."17 That was a slightly different description but did18 not use the word "intelligence" just to balance, as it19 were, your coverage?20 A. Yes.21 Q. It was becoming clear, was it not, that this was22 a dispute that was spiralling out of control?23 A. I would say that this was a very sudden escalation. We24 had an exchange of letters which were clearly -- they


19/42

25 were very unhappy with our broadcasting but there had

1271 then been a nine or 10 day pause and as far as we were2 concerned we had answered their replies and it fitted3 the pattern of many other complaints about other stories

4 where there would be a quick flurry or exchange of5 letters, then it would go away. So although we did6 anticipate that Mr Campbell might use the opportunity,7 in giving his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee,8 to make some comment about the BBC coverage, we9 certainly had not anticipated anything on this scale.10 Q. You had not anticipated misuse of that platform, if it11 was a platform, and you had taken the opportunity to12 respond on a platform?13 A. That is right. The Today Programme had bid, I think14 both for Alastair Campbell and myself to appear the next15 day. Having discussed Alastair Campbell's evidence to16 the Foreign Affairs Committee with the director general,

17 we agreed that I should go on and defend the BBC's18 values. The key distinction in Mr Campbell's comments19 at the Foreign Affairs Committee was that he broadened20 this out from a criticism about our coverage of one21 particular story to a generalised attack on all the22 BBC's editorial values.23 Q. You have journalists that attend the lobby briefings, do24 you not?25 A. We do.

1281 Q. On the 26th June, at CAB/1/182, we have here part of the2 press briefing at 11 am Thursday 26th June 2003, and are

3 these minutes -- I mean not having been at one of these4 briefings myself -- that are produced afterwards as5 a summary of the questions asked and the responses6 given?7 A. Yes, the Downing Street website puts up a summary of the8 lobby briefing and what the Prime Minister's official9 spokesmen would have said.10 Q. What was said at one stage of the briefing:11 "In answer to further questions about the BBC, the12 Prime Minister's Official Spokesmen said that there were13 a number of questions still outstanding. They were14 quite simple:15 "Did the BBC still stand by the allegation it made16 on 29th May that No. 10 had added in the 45-minute17 claim?18 "Did it still stand by the allegation made on the19 same day that we had done so against the wishes of the20 intelligence agencies?21 "Did it still stand by the allegation made on that22 day that both we and the intelligence agencies had known23 that the 45-minute claim was wrong?24 "Did it still stand by the allegation, again on the25 same day, that we had ordered the September dossier to

1291 be 'sexed up' in the period leading up to its2 publication - that it had been 'cobbled together at the3 last minute with some unconfirmed material that had not


20/42

4 been approved by the security services'?5 "Did it still stand by the statement made on6 6th June that the JIC was no part of the intelligence7 community but was a No. 10 Committee whose job was to8 arbitrate between the Government and intelligence9 agencies?

10 "Did it stand by the claim on 3rd June that the11 chairman of the JIC only 'kind of bureaucratically12 signed off his report'?"13 Then they go on to other questions. Now, whatever14 the genesis of the dispute, and I hope I have taken you15 fairly to the material which -- very briefly -- had led16 to the dispute, it was now coming down to some pretty17 specific questions?18 A. Yes.19 Q. At this stage, did you ask to see Mr Gilligan's notes?20 A. Not at this stage, no. These questions came -- some of21 these issues were raised by Mr Campbell in his evidence.22 This was given in the lobby briefing and only formed the

23 basis of Alastair Campbell's letter to me which arrived24 late that afternoon on Thursday.25 Q. Can I take you, so you have that in front of you, to

1301 BBC/5/94. Is this the letter to which you are2 referring?3 A. Yes, it is. Yes.4 Q. Can you tell us what this letter does? It runs for some5 three pages.6 A. Yes. I mean it sets out at the top there, it quotes7 Sir John Humphrys' introduction from the Today Programme8 which seems to encapsulate in Downing Street's view the

9 essence of the allegation which our source was making.10 Q. Pausing there, was that a fair encapsulation of the11 allegations that were being made?12 A. Yes, I think that is a reasonably fair encapsulation.13 Q. And then, over the page to BBC/5/95, the questions are14 these, and they seem to bear a remarkable similarity to15 the lobby briefing, but those questions are set out16 again.17 A. Yes. This is of course the first time they those18 questions have been asked in that way. They were not19 entered in the early letters in that form.20 Q. And the response is not quite the same day but fairly21 shortly afterwards, BBC/5/119.22 A. Yes, in his letter Mr Campbell had asked me to reply by23 the end of that day and I received his letter at24 4 o'clock, so we did not believe we could give it proper25 consideration in that time and we answered the next day.

1311 Q. So you answered the next day, a perfectly reasonable2 reason. You talk about the allegations of biased3 reporting at page 119, page 120 you talk about the4 February dossier, then you talk about, page 121, unease5 in the security services, and you at 122 refer to6 a number of other newspaper reports --7 A. Yes.8 Q. -- which it is fair to say had not quite attracted the9 same attention as the Today report, had they?


21/42

10 A. They had not. What we were seeking to do there was to11 explain our reasons for broadcasting -- we had taken the12 very unusual step of broadcasting allegations on the13 basis of a single anonymous source and an important part14 of our reason for doing so was the context that that15 provides in terms of the February dossier which had been

16 discredited, and the general briefings that were being17 received by a wide number of journalists, not just those18 working for the BBC. As you say, a number of those19 other reports predated Andrew Gilligan's or certainly20 predated his mention of Alastair Campbell in The Mail on21 Sunday and certainly had not attracted anything like the22 same attention.23 Q. Can you turn to page 124 where you turn to the specific24 questions that had been asked:25 "Now to your questions and I make no apology for

1321 repeating some of the points I have just made", which

2 I hope I have at least put in context.3 "Does the BBC still stand by the allegation it made4 on 29th May that No. 10 added in the 45 minute claim to5 the dossier?"6 "The allegation was not made by the BBC but by our7 source -- a senior official involved in the compilation8 of the dossier."9 At this stage, had you seen the notes that10 Mr Gilligan had made of his meeting on 22nd May?11 A. This letter was drafted on 27th May in my office --12 Q. 27th June.13 A. 27th June, I beg your pardon. Parts of it were drafted14 by my deputy Mark Damazer and he made reference -- he

15 had referred and talked to Andrew Gilligan, who was also16 in the office working alongside us, for points of17 clarification. He also sought points of clarification18 from Steve Mitchell and Kevin Marsh. So elements of it19 were drafted, I then looked at them, rewrote some of20 them and at various stages the director general reviewed21 the letter.22 LORD HUTTON: Mr Sambrook may I just ask you about that23 sentence:24 "The allegation was not made by the BBC but by our25 source -- a senior official involved in the compilation

1331 of the dossier -- and the BBC stands by the reporting of2 it."3 Is that making the point that if a source makes4 a serious criticism to the BBC about some third party,5 the BBC considers that it is appropriate to report that6 criticism because it has been made irrespective of its7 view of the validity of the criticism?8 A. It would depend on a number of criteria and whether the9 allegation has passed a certain threshold. In this case10 that would include the seniority and credibility of the11 source, their track record and the extent to which the12 issues they were talking about, how important they were,13 how much an issue of public interest it was.14 Again we took the decision to publish those15 allegations without being able to prove them ourselves,


22/42

16 but because we believed in the credibility of the source17 and because we believed they were important allegations18 and subject to two caveats. One was that we were19 completely clear and transparent at all times that these20 allegations came from one single anonymous source and21 did not try to pretend they were better established than

22 that, and secondly that we gave the Government ample and23 frequent opportunity to put their point of view and to24 rebut and deny the claims, which I believe we did.25 LORD HUTTON: But if the BBC are going to report a criticism

1341 of that nature from a source, is consideration given to2 the question whether the body criticised should be given3 an opportunity to show to the BBC, if it can, that the4 criticism is unjustified before any report is broadcast?5 A. Well, that would depend on the circumstances, I think.6 I mean, the answer to that, briefly, will be sometimes7 yes and sometimes no, but the crucial thing for us is

8 that we do give whoever the other side of the argument9 is ample opportunity to state their case and put their10 position.11 I think quite often that might entail giving them12 access to what we were going to say or briefing them on13 what we were going to say in advance, but on a programme14 like the Today Programme which produces a lot of15 political journalism and probably several times a week16 makes stories which may be based on a single source or17 not, very seldom of this gravity I accept, they have18 a relationship with Government ministries which is well19 oiled, if I can put it that way; and I think on the20 programme they feel there is a convention and a well

21 oiled routine they go through both with Downing Street22 and the ministries, and I think they felt in this case23 they had gone through the kinds of processes they would24 be expected to do.25 LORD HUTTON: So you are suggesting as regards political

1351 criticism that there is an understanding, perhaps put it2 that way, that if there is going to be criticism of the3 Government, the Today Programme considers it is4 justifiable to broadcast that criticism provided in the5 same programme they give a Government minister the6 chance to respond?7 A. Yes.8 LORD HUTTON: Thank you.9 MR DINGEMANS: The next specific allegation that you have10 been asked to deal with in the letter is:11 "Does it still stand by the allegation made on the12 same day that we did so against the wishes of the13 intelligence agencies?"14 "Again we reported accurately what we had been told15 by the source that the 45 minute claim was included in16 the dossier 'against our wishes'."17 Then this:18 "Does it still stand by the allegation made on that19 day that both we and the intelligence agencies knew the20 45 minute claim to be wrong and inserted it despite21 knowing that?"


23/42

22 "Andrew Gilligan accurately reported the source23 telling him that the Government 'probably knew that the24 45 minute figure was wrong' and that the claim was25 'questionable'. The basis for this assertion by

136

1 Andrew Gilligan's source was that the information about2 the 45 minute claim had been derived from only one3 intelligence source -- whereas most of the other claims4 in the dossier had at least two. Gilligan's source also5 believed this single Iraqi source had probably got the6 information wrong."7 You I think have established that you did not look8 at the notes beforehand, and you will recall -- I think9 you were here yesterday when Mr Gilligan was giving his10 evidence?11 A. Yes.12 Q. And I think, and I hope I put it accurately, he13 described his earlier reporting where this allegation

14 had been made as less than perfect but not wrong.15 A. Indeed.16 Q. I think those were his words. But there is nothing, is17 there, when you look at his notes of the meeting with18 Dr Kelly, to suggest that the source, Dr Kelly, had ever19 suggested that?20 A. No, I accept that; and clearly we should not have21 suggested it was a direct quote. But we did believe,22 and we discussed this obviously at some length with23 Andrew, that it was an accurate reflection of24 interpretation of parts of his conversation with25 Dr Kelly. Andrew yesterday said that he believed that

1371 phrase was not wrong but less than perfect. I think in2 saying that it was not wrong, he still believes, and3 indeed we still stand by that interpretation of part of4 his conversation.5 Q. If you are going to make a particularly serious6 allegation based on your interpretation or7 understanding, perfectly reasonable perhaps, of what8 a source has said but where you might be able to draw9 two inferences from it, is that not the sort of10 situation where you might highlight it and go back to11 the source to check it?12 A. Well, it depends on how confident you are of the13 interpretation that you are placing upon your14 conversation. If there is doubt in your mind then of15 course you would go back and check it. If there is not16 doubt in your mind then I would not expect to do so.17 Q. So if you were in fact expressing yourself in a less18 than perfect way, but not wrong, would you, when that19 specific claim had been called into question, think that20 the claim ought to be checked with the source?21 A. Well I am not sure that that particular phrase, which we22 now are putting under the spotlight -- as I said, until23 this letter arrived on the 26th it had not been24 identified in that way.25 Q. No. I have shown I hope fairly the genesis leading up

138


24/42

1 to that and the identification of those questions in the2 Prime Minister's official spokesman's briefing on that3 morning, and the letter. But I think you told us you4 had worked on the reply most of that day in the office;5 is that right?6 A. Yes, mid morning to mid afternoon.

7 Q. And you had taken extra time to ensure that the reply8 was accurate?9 A. Yes, well as much as we could. We were clearly under10 time pressure to release it.11 LORD HUTTON: May I just ask you, Mr Sambrook: if the Today12 Programme is broadcasting some very important matter13 based on a conversation with a source and the reporter14 prepares his report, on occasions will he go back to the15 source and say, in effect: now, this is a serious16 matter, I am going to report something which is critical17 to a particular body, I just want to check with you that18 you are happy with me stating the matter in these terms;19 is that sometimes done?

20 A. It is sometimes done but I would not say it is the norm.21 LORD HUTTON: What would influence the reporter to do that?22 A. If they were, as they were preparing their report, in23 some way uncertain about the basis of what they had been24 told.25 LORD HUTTON: And if they are basing a report on inferences

1391 which they draw from what they have been told, rather2 than giving in effect a direct quotation, would that3 influence them?4 A. Well it is a question of their judgment, clearly.5 LORD HUTTON: And would that be a matter of editorial

6 supervision to any extent? Would it be part of the duty7 or the function of an editor?8 A. Yes, it would. I would expect that conversation to have9 taken place, as I believe it did in this instance, with10 the programme editor about who the source was, what they11 had actually said and the basis for the way we reported12 it.13 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Very well, thank you.14 Now, Mr Dingemans, I think we will give the15 stenographers a break now, so we will rise for five16 minutes.17 (3.10 pm)18 (Short Break)19 (3.15 pm)20 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Sambrook, was there anything that21 influenced you to reply, as you did, to Mr Campbell's22 letter? What was the summary of your reasons for taking23 this stance?24 A. Well, we clearly needed to address his concerns in25 a substantial way. We believe that involved explaining

1401 the basis on which we had taken the decision to2 broadcast this item, based on a single anonymous source,3 and a lot of that was setting out the context and then4 attempting to answer the questions he raised as best we5 could.6 Q. Right. And were there any specific factors that


25/42

7 persuaded you that the original story was correct?8 A. Well, we believed it had been through a proper editorial9 process on the Today Programme. We had obviously talked10 to Andrew Gilligan and to his editor Kevin Marsh at some11 length, and on a number of occasions; and we had12 confidence that the source was in a position to make the

13 allegations he had made and that he was a credible and14 reliable person who we should therefore reflect their15 views.16 LORD HUTTON: Could you just elaborate for me, I know you17 have already explained to some extent, but can you just18 summarise what you regard as a proper editorial19 procedure with particular application to this report by20 Mr Gilligan?21 A. Well, Andrew Gilligan would have let the programme know22 that he had a story that he wished to broadcast and23 would have discussed it, probably in the first place,24 with an editor of the day who is, if you like, a deputy25 to the overall programme editor. If it was a serious

1411 story, as this clearly was, he would have been referred2 up to the editor of the programme who would have3 discussed -- indeed did on this occasion -- who the4 source was, the nature of the allegations, how credible5 and reliable this source had proved, the extent to which6 the allegations they were making were of public7 interest, the extent to which efforts to corroborate8 what they had said had been taken and any other9 corroborative circumstances surrounding it, and, on that10 basis, would have taken a decision on whether or not it11 was right to place this source's allegations into the

12 public domain.13 As I said, on this occasion the programme editor14 I think did indicate only very generally to his line15 manager that there was a report of this nature but he16 took the decision, as I think is perfectly proper for17 him to have done so, that we should broadcast this,18 subject to the two caveats which I mentioned before,19 which is that we should be completely transparent that20 this came from a single anonymous source; and that we21 should allow the Government ample opportunity to put its22 case and to rebut or deny it.23 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.24 MR DINGEMANS: At this stage you were receiving, I think you25 tell us, some e-mails from other persons supporting the

1421 story; is that right?2 A. Yes, from the end of June and through July I received3 I think seven or eight unsolicited e-mails from either4 current or former BBC journalists.5 Q. We have seen the one that Mr Hewitt sent.6 A. Yes.7 Q. Can we look at BBC/5/160? Now there is not much of the8 e-mail that survived after it has been redacted but what9 does the top e-mail tell us?10 A. Well, this was Stephen Whittle, who we have referred to11 before, saying that he had spoken to in this case12 I think a fairly senior official, who was telling us to,


26/42

13 as he says there, stick to our guns; he had been hearing14 similar things.15 Q. I am not going to take you to them all, I hope you16 understand that.17 A. Of course.18 Q. But another one that I think is a reasonable reflection

19 is BBC/5/178. It is extremely difficult to read because20 so much, quite understandably, has been cut out. Could21 you tell me the gist of this e-mail? First of all, who22 is it from and to?23 A. It is from Nick Gowing, who is one of our presenters,24 sent to me. Again, it reflects a conversation that he25 had in January with a senior member of the intelligence

1431 community who had shown some discomfort in discussing2 whether or not the public could be convinced about the3 intelligence in favour of the 45 minute claim.4 Q. Right. And there was one other e-mail which you know

5 I took Mr Gilligan to yesterday, BBC/5/118, which was at6 about this time, the same time as the letter is being7 produced, where -- and I am not going to read it again8 entirely but where there was a suggestion that there had9 been loose use of language and lack of judgment in some10 of the phraseology in the original piece.11 A. Yes, I would like to say two things about this.12 Firstly, the date of that is 27th June in the afternoon.13 This was when we were under maximum pressure to produce14 our reply to Alastair Campbell's letter and we were15 under external pressure because a reply was expected.16 Indeed, Kevin and Steve Mitchell were under pressure17 from me to review everything they had done and review

18 the nature of the story and the basis on which it had19 been reported with a view to giving a full and proper20 reply to Downing Street.21 I think that this reflects Kevin's views on looking22 back over it and his concerns about a lack of23 consistency in some of the phrasing and the way that we24 had encapsulated the story. But I have to say I do not25 think -- it certainly does not, from my point of view,

1441 give the considered judgment of the BBC News about2 Andrew Gilligan as a reporter.3 Q. No, and no-one is looking at anything other than the4 specific use that Andrew Gilligan made of Dr Kelly's5 information on this particular occasion. But on this6 particular occasion the judgment appears to have been7 formed by his programme editor in the circumstances that8 you have identified, that there was a loose use of9 language.10 A. He was clearly identifying that it would have been11 better if we had been more consistent across the great12 range of reports and so on, in the language that we had13 used to describe Dr Kelly's allegations.14 Q. One of the allegations Mr Gilligan was keen to point out15 that he had not repeated but which Mr Campbell had16 identified in his letter was the Government knew that17 this was false, and if the situation had come where he18 had not really intended it or whatever reason, and


27/42

19 Mr Campbell had identified it as being false, was then20 not the time to accept that that particular part of the21 story could not be supported?22 A. But that was not the case. We still believe and,23 indeed, I believe Andrew Gilligan still believes that24 although there may be problems with that phrase -- "not

25 perfect" I think he said yesterday -- in broad terms he

1451 still believes that that reflects the basis of part of2 his conversation with Dr Kelly.3 LORD HUTTON: That is looking now at the report at 6.07 am,4 that:5 "We have been told by one of the senior officials in6 charge of drawing up that dossier that actually the7 Government probably knew that the 45 minutes figure was8 wrong."9 Are you suggesting that that is the view of the BBC10 or that they were just reporting on Mr Gilligan -- or

11 Mr Gilligan is just reporting what he believed to be the12 view of his source?13 A. I think Mr Gilligan was reporting what he believed to be14 the view of his source based on his conversation with15 Dr Kelly, in other words that intelligence service16 concerns about the 45 minutes claim had been flagged up17 to whoever may have been partly involved in compiling18 the dossier and making it ready for presentation and19 publication, and that whoever did so presented as20 certain that which they knew might not be right, or in21 other words turned a blind eye to some of the caveats22 and nuances that some of those involved would have23 preferred to have seen included. I think that is what

24 that phrase is probably intended to capture.25 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

1461 MR DINGEMANS: Your reply to Alastair Campbell provoked an2 immediate response; is that right?3 A. It did, yes.4 Q. Can I take you, just to illustrate that, to CAB/1/3675 which was a statement he issued on 27th June?6 A. Yes, I think this was a statement that Alastair Campbell7 released through the Press Association.8 Q. What he says is that your reply confirmed the central9 charge there was no evidence and that the allegations10 were outrageous, and so was your reply. And he11 described the story as a lie as you can see halfway down12 the page.13 A. Yes.14 Q. So if it had not become obvious before that things were15 getting out of control, it was certainly obvious now; is16 that right?17 A. It is. But I would like to make the point, we placed18 a great deal of emphasis on the one phrase we had just19 discussed. At this stage, that was not identified as20 being the heart of this complaint. The complaint was21 still on a very broad base; and I would say it was a22 maximalist approach to making a complaint. They were23 saying a whole allegation, including the single sourcing24 of the 45 minutes and the sexing up and so on was


28/42

25 without foundation; and we clearly did not believe that

1471 was the case.2 Q. That was the night in fact that Mr Campbell gave an3 interview to Channel 4 News. I will deal with

4 Mr Campbell on that interview rather than you, if that5 is all right.6 But the correspondence we have now seen and the7 communications between Mr Campbell and you, as8 a characterisation, it made some lawyers' correspondence9 look quite reasonable. Was there anything done to try10 to reduce the heat of some of these allegations?11 A. There was at a later stage, yes. I think it was in12 early July, I had a phone call from the chairman,13 Gavyn Davies, who said that he had had some indication14 from Downing Street that they wished to reduce the15 temperature and it would help if the BBC could make16 a conciliatory gesture.

17 As it happened, the director general was due to make18 a speech the next morning in Birmingham at the radio19 festival and I discussed this with Greg Dyke, and he20 agreed to put into his speech a conciliatory passage21 which said -- I think, at that stage, Alastair Campbell22 had rode back from his generalised attack on the BBC and23 said it was more about our coverage of this one story.24 Sir Greg Dyke welcomed the fact that he had withdrawn25 his more generalised attacks on the BBC's standards and

1481 suggested we might agree to disagree and draw a line and2 move on.

3 Q. That is not much of a climb-down on either side, is it?4 A. Well, I think it would seem so in the circumstances at5 the time.6 Q. 28th June, if I can go on to then, that is when7 Ben Bradshaw MP appeared on the Today Programme. He was8 making complaints about the absence of notice that had9 been given about the story.10 Can I take you to CAB/1/378? This is an11 illustration, this is the extract from the 28th June12 broadcast on the Today Programme. Mr Bradshaw at the13 bottom says:14 "[things have become] unusual and I think it15 reflects the depth of anger felt not just by Alastair16 but the Prime Minister and the top of Government and17 including the top of the intelligence services. And18 what you avoided to do in your interview with Bernard19 Ingham is examine the central and original allegation20 that you made on this programme which is that the21 Government inserted information in to the dossier22 against the wishes of the intelligence services knowing23 it to be false."24 In the course of that he also dealt with the25 question of notice. Can I take you to his letter which

1491 followed that, to you, at CAB/1/389? What we have here2 or will have here is a letter of 28th June from3 Ben Bradshaw to you:


29/42

4 "Dear Richard.5 "During my interview on the Today programme this6 morning your presenter, John Humphrys, asserted the BBC7 had checked out the allegation made by Andrew Gilligan8 on the Today Programme on May 29th beforehand with the9 Ministry of Defence.

10 "I have spoken to the MoD at some length, including11 with the official the BBC claims was given the12 opportunity to respond to this allegation. The MoD13 remains certain the only contact between the Today14 Programme and the MoD press office related to an15 interview on the use of cluster bombs."16 And you responded at CAB/1/390, setting out the17 information as you understood it to be?18 A. Yes.19 Q. And which related to a contact at 5 o'clock, at 6.30,20 and we heard from Mr Gilligan about his contact. Then21 a further contact, and between 8 and 8.30 and 9.45.22 Then Mr Bradshaw replied at CAB/1/391, and he asked

23 this -- he says halfway down:24 "No advance warning was given about the nature of25 the story... ", and gives the circumstances in which

1501 Adam Ingram -- who was the defence minister, is that2 right?3 A. Yes.4 Q. -- came to be briefed. He asked this at the bottom:5 "As we are entering the second month of this6 controversy, could you also tell me whether you believe7 it true that No. 10 entered the 45 minute intelligence8 against the wishes of the intelligence services and in

9 the knowledge that this was probably wrong -- the10 allegation broadcast on the Today programme on11 May 29th."12 And at 392 you say, in line with Mr Campbell's13 latest letter to you:14 "... we now wait for the report of the Foreign15 Affairs Select Committee."16 That was a line that had been suggested to you by Mr17 Campbell in a letter I have not taken you to but I will18 take him to?19 A. Yes, that is right.20 Q. So the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was then21 assuming an importance both for you and for the22 Government; is that right?23 A. Clearly, at that time, it was the most detailed24 exploration of some of these issues.25 Q. We heard this morning Ms Watts saying it is about this

1511 time, when everything is going off to the Foreign2 Affairs Committee, that she is approached about the3 identity of her source. Is there anything you wanted to4 say in relation to that?5 A. Yes, it seems to me at that time what I was trying to6 do, having seen Ms Watts' reports on Newsnight I was7 struck by the similarity to the allegations made in8 Andrew Gilligan's report and it seemed to me highly9 likely they had come from the same person and, if so, it


30/42

10 seemed to me the only responsible thing to do was to try11 to find out, if that was the case, what more might have12 been said in order either to corroborate or simply to13 establish what this source believed, given that14 Andrew Gilligan's report was coming under such vehement15 criticism.

16 Ms Watts seemed to suggest that we were trying to --17 I think she used the word "mould" this to a preconceived18 view. That was not the case at all; but I believe that19 having a strong -- having formed the view that it was20 highly probable that it was one and the same person, it21 would have been irresponsible of me not to try to find22 out whether that was the case and what else they may23 have said.24 Q. So it is right that you asked Ms Watts to identify to25 you, as part of the management of the BBC, the identity

1521 of her source?

2 A. Yes.3 Q. And she said she was not willing to do so?4 A. That is right.5 Q. And then there was some solicitors' correspondence that6 I at least identified briefly this morning.7 A. Yes.8 Q. It also had become slightly more serious. Can we look9 at BBC/5/202 which is an e-mail to which, I think, you10 have made reference. This is an e-mail from you to11 George Entwhistle. We heard from Ms Watts that12 Mr Entwhistle is the editor of Newsnight. That is13 right, is it?14 A. That is right, yes.

15 Q. Can you just explain what this e-mail is about?16 A. Well, I believed it was important, from my position as17 the head of BBC News, to try to establish all of the18 contacts that Dr Kelly might have had in the BBC; and19 clearly Susan Watts -- I was struck by the similarities,20 as I said, and far more by the similarities than any21 differences in her reports to Andrew Gilligan. And,22 therefore, if it was the same source I wanted to know23 what else he might have said in order to try to24 understand more about his views and whether we had25 properly reflected them.

1531 So when Susan refused to identify who the source2 was -- which is a position that I respect -- I then3 asked George Entwhistle, as her editor, whether he knew4 who the source was and whether he would be prepared to5 tell me. He said he did know the source but he felt6 conflicted between loyalty to his reporter and loyalty7 to his employer and was agonising about it.8 So this was an e-mail sent the next day really to9 say: look, do not get too rattled about it. I will10 withdraw the request from you because I can see you feel11 very conflicted and in a difficult position.12 Q. We then come to 6th July, which is the Sunday. The FAC13 have printed their report on 3rd July and it is going to14 be distributed on Monday 7th July?15 A. Yes.


31/42

16 Q. And you have a meeting of the board of governors on17 6th July?18 A. That is right.19 Q. I have taken Mr Gilligan to parts of the minutes of the20 board of governors. Is there any specific passage you21 want to refer to in that respect?

22 A. Well, you did refer Mr Gilligan yesterday to two23 passages. One was where a governor had made some24 comparison or suggested there might be some comparison25 between the Today Programme and the methods of the

1541 tabloid and Sunday press, I think.2 Q. Yes. Do you want to say anything about that?3 A. It was simply to say that at that meeting that was the4 view of one governor. It was a fairly robust5 discussion; and I think that their view could more6 fairly be presented as asking a question about whether7 we should examine about whether the methods of the Today

8 Programme resembled those of the tabloid press or the9 Sunday press, as opposed to those that the BBC would10 aspire to meet, to the extent that this particular11 governor perceived there should be a difference. This12 was not the general view of the board of governors.13 Q. And at that meeting there was, and I have identified the14 passage, a suggestion that there had not been a careful15 use of language in some of the original reporting.16 A. Yes, there was -- we discussed obviously the reporting17 of it and the point I have made already that we were not18 consistent in a description of the allegation across all19 of the BBC's outlets over several weeks and clearly that20 we would have been in we believed an easier position if

21 we had had greater consistency in our use of language.22 Q. We have had lots of correspondence between you and23 Mr Campbell. The correspondence now takes a slightly24 different angle; and this is on the same weekend.25 BBC/6/145.

1551 This is a letter to Gavyn Davies. Can you just2 briefly tell us about Gavyn Davies?3 A. Yes, Gavyn Davies is the chairman of the board of4 governors at the BBC.5 Q. This is from Geoff Hoon?6 A. Yes.7 Q. He said:8 "I am writing to draw to your attention an MoD9 statement which we shall be issuing later today about10 Andrew Gilligan's 'single source'. This is enclosed.11 "You will see that we have not named the official12 within the MoD who has come forward. We would, however,13 be prepared to disclose his name to you in confidence,14 on the basis that you would then immediately confirm or15 deny that this is indeed Mr Gilligan's source."16 That was responded to at BBC/6/149:17 "I have to say that the offer in your letter seems18 to be an attempt to force the BBC News Division to19 reveal the name or names of the sources ... [we will not20 do that]."21 Gavyn Davies says he did not even know the name of


32/42

22 the source.23 A. That is correct.24 Q. That was accurate obviously at the time that that was25 written?

156

1 A. That was.2 Q. And then at BBC/6/166 Mr Hoon, on 9th July, tries again3 with a letter:4 "Dear Mr Davies.5 "Thank you for your letter of 8th July replying to6 mine of the same day.7 "This is not about divulging of sources.8 "So that you can establish whether the name of the9 person who has come forward is the same as the name10 given to by BBC Management by Andrew Gilligan, I am now11 prepared to tell you that his name is David Kelly,12 adviser to the Proliferation and Arms Control13 Secretariat in the MoD."

14 The response, BBC/6/184, which was:15 "I have discussed the matter [this is Gavyn Davies16 to Mr Hoon] with Greg Dyke as Editor-in-Chief. Although17 I did not originally show him the name contained in your18 letter, I am sure he will have now seen the name in most19 of the morning's newspapers.20 "The BBC will not be making any more comments about,21 or responding to any claims concerning, the identity of22 Andrew Gilligan's source..."23 A. Yes.24 Q. In circumstances where Dr Kelly was now named to the25 public at large, and I have asked Mr Gilligan about

1571 this, why did the BBC continue to maintain that stance?2 A. Well, because the BBC owes its anonymous sources a duty3 of confidentiality. We did not know the basis on which4 Dr Kelly had come forward. We did not know to what5 extent he had admitted meeting Andrew Gilligan or how6 often. We did not know what he had admitted discussing7 with Andrew Gilligan or the extent to which he was8 accepting that he had had the full conversations with9 Andrew Gilligan. So on that basis we felt it was right,10 absolutely right, to continue our duty of11 confidentiality to him.12 This was in the context of where there had been some13 attempts over a period of days to try to narrow down who14 the BBC source might be, both in my view by Government15 and by the press.16 Q. Can I take you to BBC/6/148? This is an e-mail from17 Tim Luckhurst to you of 8th July. Who is Tim Luckhurst?18 A. I think he is now a freelance journalist but he is19 a former BBC programme editor.20 Q. I think we pick that up probably from the last line of21 the e-mail. He says this in the second paragraph:22 "I am intrigued by the MoD man's confession. I have23 no doubt that he has come under immense pressure ...24 Indeed, he may not be the real source..."25 At this stage did you know whether or not Dr Kelly

158


33/42

1 was the source?2 A. Yes, I did.3 Q. And who had told you that?4 A. I had asked Andrew Gilligan on Friday 27th, the morning5 when we started drafting the major reply to6 Alastair Campbell.

7 Q. So you knew from 27th June; and although you had asked8 him for the name of his source, you had not asked for9 the notes of his meeting; is that fair?10 A. I think we had the notes of his meeting early the11 following week; but we certainly -- I mean Andrew was12 working close alongside both myself and Mark Damazer in13 our responses to the Government and had access to his14 notes in doing so.15 Q. You then had a meeting with Mr Hoon on 8th July at 1.30;16 and you have made, I think, some notes of that meeting17 or some notes have been made by personnel within the18 BBC?19 A. Yes.

20 Q. BBC/6/140. Can you just tell me what we are looking at?21 A. Yes, this is a note that I made after the meeting with22 Geoff Hoon when I got back from the meeting, which was23 probably

hearing transcript - 13 august 2003 afternoon

Documents