hearing transcript - 28 august 2003 afternoon

8/8/2019 Hearing Transcript - 28 August 2003 Afternoon

1/28

Hearing Transcripts

1 sit again at 2 o'clock.2 (1.05 pm)3 (The short adjournment)4 (2.00 pm)

5 LORD HUTTON: Yes, Mr Dingemans.6 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Davies, we were talking about7 Mr Campbell's evidence on 25th June --8 A. Yes.9 Q. -- and your view about whether or not this was an10 escalation in the dispute between the Government and the11 BBC.12 A. Yes. I mean, I felt this was an extraordinary moment.13 I felt it was an almost unprecedented attack on the BBC14 to be mounted by the head of communications at15 10 Downing Street. Mr Campbell accused the BBC of lying16 directly. He accused Mr Gilligan of lying directly. He17 alleged that the BBC had accused the Prime Minister of

18 lying, something which I never believed the BBC had19 done. And he accused the BBC of having followed an20 anti-war agenda before, during and after the Iraqi21 conflict.22 I must say, I took this as an attack on the23 impartiality of the BBC and the integrity of the BBC,24 done with great vigour.25 Q. Could I take you to BBC/17/2? This is a report in the

1101 newspaper, The Times, the next day, 26th June:2 "Campbell accuses BBC of lying."3 A. Yes.4 Q. Did you see this coverage or this type of coverage at5 the time?6 A. I certainly saw this type of coverage at the time.7 I was more focused on actually having watched8 Alastair Campbell give evidence on television, so I knew9 exactly what he had said.10 Q. Were there any avenues, so far as you were concerned,11 that might have been used to resolve the dispute?12 A. Well, another troubling aspect of this, to me, was that13 the Director General had told me that in a previous14 letter to Mr Campbell, I think on 16th June or15 thereabouts, the Director of News had suggested to16 Mr Campbell that if he felt he had a complaint about17 inaccuracy of a particular broadcast or unfairness, he18 should approach the BBC Programme Complaints Unit, which19 I think would have given him due process for resolving20 his complaint in a non-conflictual and non-public21 manner.22 He also had the option, which I do not think he was23 told in that letter specifically, of complaining to the24 Broadcasting Standards Commission about unfairness.25 That is a body that is entirely independent of the BBC

1111 and has the power, if it finds on the side of the2 complainant, to ask the BBC to broadcast a correction.3 LORD HUTTON: Mr Davies, at this point in time had you4 actually seen a transcript of what Mr Gilligan had said


2/28

5 on the Today Programme at 6.07 am on 29th May?6 A. (Pause). This is by 25th June, my Lord?7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.8 A. It would have been around then. I am not sure that it9 was prior to that or after that, but it would have been10 around then.

11 LORD HUTTON: But you had seen the transcript by that time?12 A. I cannot promise I had seen it before Mr Campbell's13 evidence.14 LORD HUTTON: No. Before Mr Campbell's?15 A. I cannot promise I had seen the transcript before16 Mr Campbell gave evidence.17 LORD HUTTON: Yes, to the FAC?18 A. Yes, to the FAC.19 LORD HUTTON: Yes.20 A. I certainly saw it immediately thereafter. My attention21 on this matter rose dramatically after the FAC evidence22 by Mr Campbell.23 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

24 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Campbell wrote two letters on 26th June,25 one to Mr Sambrook, that we have seen. Can I take you

1121 to BBC/5/92? This is a letter from Mr Campbell to2 Mr Dyke. What is his position?3 A. Mr Dyke is the Director General of the BBC. He is in4 charge of the BBC's operations day-to-day and is the5 editor-in-chief of the BBC.6 Q. We can see he is sorry he said what he did but was7 afraid private correspondence and discussion had been8 pointless:9 "I am regularly assured by Richard Sambrook that

10 when the BBC makes mistakes, you admit it. I'm afraid11 that is not the case and I have nine years of12 experience..."13 Then he says that the story is 100 per cent wrong,14 how he is a huge admirer of the BBC, at the bottom:15 "But I really believe that if this story is not16 corrected, and an apology not given, it renders17 pointless any attempt at meaningful discussion about how18 to resolve the difficulties between us."19 A. Yes.20 Q. Did you see this letter?21 A. Yes, I did. This letter was copied to me, I believe, by22 Mr Campbell.23 Q. We also know that Mr Campbell wrote to Mr Sambrook; and24 that is CAB/1/352, a letter of 26th June.25 A. Yes.

1131 Q. He asked for a response to some specific questions; and2 the specific questions are picked up in the response.3 If I may, I will go straight to the response, which was4 on 27th June at CAB/1/355.5 Were you a party to this letter of response?6 A. No, I was not a party to that. I was aware --7 Richard Sambrook showed me the letter from8 Alastair Campbell; and he also showed me a draft of the9 reply that he was going to send. I was eager, as10 Chairman, by this stage, to make sure that the


3/28

11 management, the Director General and the Director of12 News, were acting appropriately in replying seriously to13 the allegations that Mr Campbell -- to the queries that14 Mr Campbell was raising. So, I think to say I was15 a party to it is an exaggeration, but I was very aware16 of it being drafted, yes.

17 Q. Can I take you to CAB/1/360, through the letter, page 718 of the letter? And the questions that Mr Campbell had19 asked were:20 "Does the BBC still stand by the allegation it made21 on 29th May that No. 10 added in the 45 minute claim to22 the dossier?"23 It said:24 "The allegation was not made by the BBC but by our25 source -- a senior official involved in the compilation

1141 of the dossier -- and the BBC stands by the reporting of2 it."

3 There is a distinction between the BBC and the4 source. Was that how you saw it at the time?5 A. I read this letter, Mr Dingemans, I did not write it.6 I believe that what this letter was doing was giving, on7 behalf of BBC management, our best and most truthful8 explanation to Mr Campbell of what we had reported.9 I am perfectly aware that we -- I was aware at the time10 that we had written this; and it was absolutely what11 I believed to be the case. We had, right through this12 period, a problem persuading Mr Campbell that the BBC13 was reporting a story in which it was reporting the14 views of a senior and credible and reliable source, but15 was not itself making the allegations that that source

16 was putting into the public domain via the BBC.17 LORD HUTTON: Mr Davies, may I just ask you, if we could go18 to look at what Mr Gilligan said on 29th May, BBC/1/4.19 You see the passage there:20 "... what we've been told by one of the senior21 officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that,22 actually the Government probably erm, knew that that23 forty five minute figure was wrong, even before it24 decided to put it in."25 I appreciate that in the later reports on Today

1151 Mr Gilligan did not put it in those terms, and his2 comments were of a less serious nature; but do you3 regard that as being a very serious charge that the4 Government probably knew that the 45 minutes figure was5 wrong? Apart from whether it was a report of what6 a source said or whether it was an allegation by the7 BBC, do you regard that as a very serious charge?8 A. My Lord, I could not say other than that that is9 a serious charge, yes.10 LORD HUTTON: Yes. If you have a serious charge against11 a person, let us take a totally different situation.12 Suppose that an allegation that some very prominent13 public figure is taking bribes to induce him to follow14 a certain course of action, and you have two types of15 reporting. There is a report on the BBC that one of16 their reporters, having investigated matters, considers


4/28

17 that the very prominent person is taking bribes but then18 let us suppose the report was not in those terms but it19 was a report in these terms: the broadcast said:20 a reliable source has informed the BBC that that public21 figure is taking bribes; do you consider that as regards22 the gravity of the charge there is a distinction between

23 those two charges?24 A. My Lord, I think that in that particular case --25 LORD HUTTON: I appreciate it is an illustration and it is

1161 not against the background of other reports.2 A. My feeling, my Lord, is in a situation like that you3 would ask the senior public figure whether it was true.4 LORD HUTTON: Yes.5 A. And you would hope to get a truthful response or at6 least an elucidation of the story. Almost certainly you7 would be able to, through other investigative reporting,8 add a considerable amount of information before you

9 would broadcast that. I think the particular problem10 with the area we are talking about here is that in11 politics you do not always get an absolutely truthful12 denial of a --13 LORD HUTTON: I appreciate that, yes.14 A. -- report. And sometimes it is very difficult to get15 direct corroboration, especially in the world that we16 are talking about here, of a particular story. But17 I certainly was aware that was a serious charge,18 my Lord, yes.19 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Yes. Thank you.20 A. But I did take it to be being made by the source and not21 by Mr Gilligan.

22 LORD HUTTON: Yes. But I fully understand your explanation23 about the problems in particular reporting and getting24 confirmations or denials, I entirely appreciate that.25 Just on the point of distinction, if one looks at it

1171 from the point of view of the person who is the subject2 of the report, let us say the report is unjustified --3 let us take it away from the matter we are considering,4 to some totally different imaginary case -- do you think5 there is a degree of difference between the justified6 grievance that a person who is the subject of an7 unjustified criticism might have, depending on whether8 the report says the BBC considered that or the report is9 that "the BBC has learnt from a reliable source10 that...", does it affect the sense of injustice that the11 object of the criticism might have?12 A. My Lord, I believe that there is an enormous difference13 between those two statements, because I believe that if14 the BBC News reports that the BBC believes something,15 the requirement for certainty is much greater on behalf16 of the broadcaster. If the BBC reports that a credible17 and reliable source believes something, then it is18 clearly thought to be something that should be put into19 the public domain, a valid remark to put into the public20 domain, but it is clearly hinged on one person's view.21 And I think that that was what this was.22 LORD HUTTON: Yes. I see. Thank you.


5/28

23 MR DINGEMANS: If I can continue with CAB/1/360. The next24 point was:25 "Does it still stand by the allegation made on the

1181 same day that we did so against the wishes of the

2 intelligence agencies?"3 "Answer: Again we reported accurately what we had4 been told by the source that the 45 minute claim was5 included in the dossier 'against our wishes'.6 "Does it still stand by the allegation made on that7 day that both we and the intelligence agencies knew the8 45 minute claim to be wrong and inserted it despite9 knowing that?10 "Answer: Andrew Gilligan accurately reported the11 source telling him that the Government 'probably knew12 that the 45 minute figure was wrong' and that the claim13 was 'questionable'. The basis for this assertion by14 Andrew Gilligan's source was that the information about

15 the 45 minute claim had been derived from only one16 intelligence source -- whereas most of the other claims17 in the dossier had at least two. Gilligan's source also18 believed this single Iraqi source had probably got the19 information wrong."20 We have had a chance to see Mr Gilligan's notes. At21 this stage had you seen Mr Gilligan's notes?22 A. No, I had not. In fact, I did not see Mr Gilligan's23 notes until I believe Dr Kelly died, actually.24 Q. And did any of the Governors see Mr Gilligan's notes25 before?

119

1 A. No, no. Again, the Board of Governors is a supervisory2 board. It is not a board of, you know, direct editorial3 day-to-day management.4 Q. No, but I think you explained that this issue had become5 a very large issue.6 A. It had, but I thought that the Director General of the7 BBC and the Director of News were more than capable, and8 I believe they are more than capable of answering this9 letter from Mr Campbell without me cross checking every10 paragraph.11 Q. No, not at the letter stage, later on. But if one comes12 to CAB/1/361 you can see then the other aspects of it.13 I will not necessarily take you through it all. Each14 claim is answered, as it were, by reference to the15 source and the reporting of the source.16 A. My belief at the time -- and this is important; my17 belief at the time was that this letter represented the18 BBC's best reply to Mr Campbell about his questions, in19 reply to his questions. But I did not feel it was my20 job or role at all to satisfy myself about each21 individual line of the letter. It was not my letter.22 Q. At about this time, you, yourself, have contacts with23 the other Governors by e-mail; is that right?24 A. Yes. I started to feel that the Board of Governors as25 a whole needed to focus on this matter, so I sent them

1201 a couple of e-mails, I think, in the week after


6/28


7/28

8 excellent, some uncertainty over the claim by9 Mr Gilligan's source, but supporting your stance in that10 respect.11 A. That is correct, yes.12 Q. I think we can see, as another example, at BBC/14/8613 Baroness Hogg replied:

14 "Your summary seems to be well judged..."15 A. I believe a lot of the Governors, at that stage,16 Mr Dingemans, had the same view that I did about the17 wide ranging and unusual nature of Mr Campbell's attacks18 on the BBC.19 Q. You then decide to call a meeting of the Governors. Was20 that a planned meeting or was it an extraordinary21 meeting, in that sense?22 A. The next planned meeting was actually set, I think, for23 17th July. I realised, though, that myself and other24 board members and the Director General were going to25 have to give public evidence to the Select Committee on

1231 Culture some time prior to that and do a press2 conference as well; and it certainly would not have been3 feasible to go as far as that and give a press4 conference without knowing what my fellow Governors5 thought about these matters. But I also felt that the6 attack on the BBC was so all encompassing by this stage7 and so continuous that it really was for the Board of8 Governors to stand up and say that parts of this attack9 were inappropriate.10 Q. Were there any concerns about having the meeting on11 6th July?12 A. Yes, I had two concerns. One concern was that it was

13 still not certain, although I believed it was highly14 likely, that Mr Campbell would not lodge an official15 complaint with the Programme Complaints Unit, thereby16 going through due progress. If Mr Campbell had done17 that, then an appeal might have come to the Governors.18 I took the view that that was not decisive because19 Mr Campbell could go to the Broadcasting Standards20 Commission instead of the Governors if he had so wanted.21 The other thing which was on my mind was the report22 of the FAC on the reasons for going to war in Iraq,23 which was due on 7th July, and the Governors meeting was24 eventually called on 6th July. To be honest, I felt25 that these two events were orthogonal to each other, and

1241 that the FAC report should not determine the timing of2 the Board of Governors' meeting.3 Q. Going back to BBC/14/95, this is your e-mail calling the4 Governors to the meeting. You say:5 "This is an unusually important moment in our6 careers as Governors...", and you are pleased that7 everyone is available:8 "I do not think that we should seek to take a view9 during this meeting on whether the Gilligan story was10 accurate. This is not a question on which we need to11 take responsibility. Instead, I think we should12 concentrate on the following three questions:13 "1. Mr Campbell has made allegations of systematic


8/28

14 bias ... Should we reiterate our already published15 view ...16 "2. [He] has also alleged that the Today Programme17 breached the BBC's producers' guidelines. I believe18 that we should investigate ...19 "3. We should also consider whether to initiate

20 investigations into any other matters of concern ...",21 for example journalists writing for newspapers.22 Why did the Governors decide or you decide, in this23 e-mail which the Governors accepted, not to look at the24 actual complaint the Government had, which was: this25 story is untrue, it has been made or reported by the BBC

1251 as made to them and that has caused us immense damage?2 A. Well, for two reasons. One was that I believed that the3 Director General and the Director of News had already4 replied on the question of whether the source's words5 were reported accurately. So that aspect of accuracy

6 I felt had been covered by the letter of 27th June sent7 by Richard Sambrook. But, more importantly, I felt that8 it was actually impossible -- I mean it was quite9 literally impossible for the Board of Governors to10 determine whether the allegations made by Mr Gilligan's11 source were intrinsically true. And I thought the12 important thing was to determine whether -- from the13 point of view of the supervisory board, was to determine14 whether the BBC had followed the correct processes in15 clearing the story, thinking about the source and16 reporting the story, thereby making it valid to put it17 into the public domain. But without access to all of18 the intelligence dossiers, different drafts of them,

19 and, you know, questioning the people who had put the20 dossiers together, it was quite literally impossible for21 the Board of Governors to determine whether the story22 was -- the allegations made by Mr Gilligan's source were23 intrinsically true.24 Q. So if Mr Campbell had actually complained through the25 BBC route, and said: this story -- you might have been

1261 right to report it but it has done me a great deal of2 damage, it is untrue; what would have been the likely3 response if he had gone through that route: well, we4 cannot decide, because we cannot look at the dossiers?5 A. There is an established practice in these cases,6 Mr Dingemans. I think one of the things that the7 Programme Complaints Unit would have done in those8 circumstances is examined directly Mr Gilligan's9 evidence for, you know, reporting the words that he10 reported; examine Mr Gilligan and the editor of Today's11 reason for believing that this was a credible and12 reliable source; they would have examined other13 surrounding evidence that may have been, you know,14 important in determining whether the story would have15 been run; and they probably would have done all of those16 things but still been unable, I suspect, to get to the17 intrinsic accuracy of the allegation.18 So, I mean, I think it just was a very difficult19 allegation to check from the outside. What that meant


9/28

20 to me was that you had to be absolutely clear that you21 were reporting the words of a source and you had to be22 absolutely clear that you had reported the Government's23 denials.24 Q. In relation to Mr Gilligan, I have shown you that25 passage of his evidence on 19th June where Mr Campbell

1271 characterises it as backtracking, but he certainly2 clarifies what his source had said to him. And in that3 clarification he makes it clear that he is not alleging4 any knowing wrongness on the part of the Government, yet5 I have taken you to the reply of 27th June where the BBC6 have stood firm, saying Mr Gilligan is reporting what7 the source said to him.8 A. I did not pick up that difference at the time; and9 Mr Gilligan was involved in the drafting of the10 27th June letter, and I do not know why it was not11 picked up by him.

12 Q. We have certainly seen the notes. Can I take you to13 BBC/14/96? This is I think picking up the point you14 were making in relation to the accuracy. This is from15 Dame Pauline Neville-Jones:16 "... I do think we need to be clear by what we mean17 about the 'accuracy' of 'the Gilligan story'. [He]18 reported a source as having claimed that the document19 was sexed up. We do not need to judge the accuracy of20 the source's claim and we appear to have assurances from21 the Head of News that the source, though uncorroborated,22 was considered to be both reliable and in a position to23 know..."24 Then it goes on to deal with other issues. I think

25 another example of a response is at 101.

1281 LORD HUTTON: Just before we leave that, are you in2 agreement, Mr Davies, with the statement by3 Pauline Neville-Jones that:4 "We do not need to judge the accuracy of the5 source's claim."6 A. My Lord, I simply do not think it would have been7 possible to do that, and going through all of the8 Governors' deliberations in this week that we are now9 discussing, it would have been wonderful to have been10 able to conduct an investigation which showed with11 certainty whether or not this was true, but it never12 occurred to me that that could conceivably be done from13 where we were sitting in the Board of Governors.14 LORD HUTTON: Yes.15 MR DINGEMANS: And I think if we go to BBC/14/101 we can see16 your response to Dame Pauline's e-mail. At the bottom17 of the page:18 "Thank you. I understand ... your points."19 She had thought it better to get someone independent20 to look at coverage before --21 A. Yes.22 Q. And you had responded to that; and I know it was then23 discussed later at the Governors' meeting.24 A. Yes, ongoing here, Mr Dingemans, was an issue which25 I actually believed at the time to be crucial, and that


10/28


11/28

5 that, for example, one could have determined before6 rather than after the broadcast what the Chairman of the7 Joint Intelligence Committee's views were?8 A. Well, the Governors put on record in their statement9 that they did feel that the Today Programme should, on10 this occasion, have gone to the Government with clearer

11 pre-notification of the story. It would then have been12 for the editor of Today to have determined whether any13 response from the Government that they had received14 would have changed the report. I believe Mr Sambrook15 said to you that he did not think it would have greatly16 changed the report, but we nevertheless took the view,17 as Governors, that with this particular report it would18 have been preferable to have gone to No. 10 or the19 Government before making the report.20 Q. Was there anything reported of the Prime Minister's21 remarks before the Governors' meeting on 6th July?22 A. I think I probably mentioned The Observer article.23 Q. What was that about?

24 A. There was an article on the morning of 6th July, an25 interview with the Prime Minister where, for the first

1321 time that I had been readily aware, he said that he2 personally thought that his personal integrity was under3 attack by the BBC; and I think I mentioned that to the4 Governors and said that I really felt we should put on5 record that there was a difference between reporting the6 words of a source and attacking the integrity of the7 Prime Minister on behalf of the BBC, which is something8 that would, quite honestly, never occur to me to do.9 Q. The letter that Mr Campbell got, did that have any

10 annexures?11 A. Did it have anything?12 Q. Anything annexed to it.13 A. Yes, I think it had approximately 75 pages of supporting14 evidence, which was largely the communications that15 Mr Campbell had previously had and others had had with16 the BBC News Division.17 Q. Did it also list any allegations reported on the Today18 Programme, Radio 5 Live and The Mail on Sunday?19 A. Yes, it listed about nine allegations. My assumption20 was that Mr Campbell was saying that all of these were21 wrong or misleading; but I also believed that those were22 broadly the allegations which had been answered in the23 27th June letter.24 Q. We now come to the meeting itself. We have seen the25 minutes earlier, but you very kindly supplied, at

1331 BBC/14/25, a translation of shorthand notes that were2 taken as well and, I mean, by way of short illustration,3 if one looks at page 28 at the bottom you are dealing4 there with the issue of consultation and warnings.5 A. Yes.6 Q. I think you have already said how you deal with that7 subsequently in the statement. It was said by SW -- who8 is SW? (Pause). Is that Mr Whittle?9 A. Yes, it is, yes, it is Stephen, yes.10 Q. He was saying that the story was being reported as


12/28

11 a sort of "chatter in the air", and not the sort of12 scoop it was; and he said:13 "If you look at the running order of the programme,14 it was not a lead item. They were therefore not as15 careful with notes ..."16 That relates to notes of reporting notice, rather

17 than notes that were made by Mr Gilligan.18 A. The Governors were told at the meeting that the notes19 kept the previous night, which would have been 28th May,20 about communications with the MoD were somewhat unclear;21 and we therefore felt that better note taking would have22 been advantageous. But we also felt, as I say, that23 pre-notification would have been advantageous in this24 case as well. Mr Gilligan does of course say that he25 notified the MoD in a telephone conversation but the

1341 notes were not adequate, in our view, to actually2 substantiate that firmly.

3 Q. There was discussion, we can see, about what matters4 might be put in the statement; and can I take you to5 BBC/14/31, where there is discussion about the 45 minute6 point. And there is discussion about the JIC denials.7 This, I think, illustrates exactly what was going on8 there, a reasonably free-ranging discussion. Is that9 a fair summary of what was happening at the Governors'10 meeting?11 A. Well, may I just say one thing here? These shorthand12 notes are not a full record of the discussion by a very13 long way, and nor are they cleared as official minutes14 by the people who are attributed to the -- to the15 comments that people are attributed here to. So I just

16 need to make that clear. But I think this captures,17 reasonably well, this part of the discussion.18 Q. For example, if we go back to BBC/6/102 we can see the19 official minutes that were produced no doubt with the20 assistance of those notes.21 A. Yes, those are the official minutes, yes.22 Q. I think those have already been made available. At this23 stage, did the Governors consider anything about the24 language used by Mr Gilligan in his broadcast?25 A. There was one Governor who raised the question of

1351 whether Mr Gilligan's reporting had been characterised2 by some loose language. The Director of News and the3 Director General both said that they had confidence in4 Mr Gilligan as a reporter, that he was an accurate5 reporter who had a previous track record of breaking6 reports of importance and doing it accurately. They7 said to us that Mr Gilligan's style was a style in which8 he reported in primary colours or bold colours rather9 than shades of grey. I think Governors were aware by10 this stage that the Today Programme of 29th May had some11 differences between the various Gilligan reports in that12 programme. So that is what I believe the Governor who13 raised this question was talking about.14 Q. Were you aware of an e-mail that we have seen sent by15 Mr Marsh to Mr Mitchell on 27th June, talking about16 Mr Gilligan's language?


13/28

17 A. No, I was not.18 Q. Can I take you to BBC/5/118, where it was said:19 "... I have to talk to AG [that is Mr Gilligan]20 early next week. I hope that by then my worst fears ...21 aren't realised. Assuming not, the guts of what I would22 say are:

23 "This story was a good piece of investigative24 journalism, marred by flawed reporting - our biggest25 millstone has been his loose use of language and lack of

1361 judgment in some of his phraseology."2 Also the writing for other outlets and an3 explanation as to why that might have happened.4 Did you think you ought to have known of these5 comments at the Governors' meetings?6 A. No, I did not honestly. These comments were between the7 editor of Today and, I think, the Director of Radio8 News. They are considerably below the Board of

9 Governors level. What we needed to know at Board of10 Governors was what the considered judgment of the News11 Division and the Director General was of Mr Gilligan as12 a reporter; and these comments do not reflect their13 considered judgment -- I think Mr Sambrook said that in14 evidence to this Inquiry; and certainly they do not15 reflect what the Director of News said about Mr Gilligan16 as a reporter to the Governors.17 Q. I think just by way of balance I should take you to18 BBC/8/1 where there is an e-mail that was sent slightly19 more contemporaneously than that, where Mr Gilligan is20 being congratulated on a great story. And I suppose you21 will not have seen that e-mail either?

22 A. No, I would not have had any reason to see these23 e-mails.24 LORD HUTTON: Did the Governors know that the first part of25 Mr Gilligan's report on 29th May was unscripted?

1371 A. I believe they did, my Lord, yes.2 LORD HUTTON: Yes.3 A. Yes, they did. At least, I certainly knew hat that4 stage, yes.5 LORD HUTTON: Does that make any difference to the question6 of editorial control?7 A. Well, I think it raises an issue. It does raise an8 issue, in my mind, about whether reports of this nature9 should be unscripted.10 LORD HUTTON: Yes.11 A. And I think that is something that we will ask the News12 Division to consider.13 LORD HUTTON: Yes. I see. Yes. Thank you.14 MR DINGEMANS: But in terms of Mr Campbell wanting to put15 the record straight, he says -- and we have heard from16 various other people, Mr Scarlett et cetera, that they17 knew that part of the allegation that the Government had18 put in this claim against the wishes of the Intelligence19 Services was false -- "We wanted that corrected",20 because they considered that to be very damaging; and,21 I mean, would the broadcasting complaints unit have been22 a better forum? You said there were limitations on the


14/28

23 BBC's own analysis because they will not have seen the24 dossiers. Would going to the broadcasting complaints25 unit have helped to put the record straight?

1381 A. Well, I believe if the Broadcasting Standards Commission

2 had decided that there was unfairness to Mr Campbell3 they could have found in Mr Campbell's favour. I do not4 think he could have complained to them on grounds of5 accuracy.6 Q. So how does one, if you are right or wrong, seriously7 aggrieved by a story that you consider to be wrong, know8 to be wrong, you write to the Governors, they are not9 going to look at the accuracy, you go to the10 Broadcasting Standards Commission, they are not going to11 look at the accuracy; how do you correct the record?12 A. The BSC can look at unfairness to an individual. I do13 not work at the BSC but I believe they could have taken14 the view that Mr Campbell was treated unfairly, as could

15 the Board of Governors. And the decision on that would16 have come down to issues such as were the words of the17 source reported correctly, was the source credible and18 reliable, was there other evidence supporting the claim19 and matters of that sort. But it certainly could20 have -- and to be honest frequently does, the process21 does come down with a judgment in favour of the22 complainant, and the BBC then either corrects the23 unfairness or apologies to the complainant.24 Very recently, for example, the Board of Governors25 found in favour of the families of some British soldiers

139

1 whose bodies had been shown on a programme called2 Correspondent, in a very high profile case. The Board3 of Governors found in favour of the complainant. So it4 happens on a frequent basis. I think about 17 per cent5 of all complaints, and many complaints are not -- some6 complaints are a little bit, you know, capricious, but7 17 per cent of all complaints are upheld by the8 programme complaints. Upheld.9 Q. 70 or 17?10 A. 17 per cent.11 Q. One seven?12 A. Yes.13 LORD HUTTON: Mr Davies, I am sorry to ask you to interrupt14 your evidence but we have to hear evidence from15 a witness in New York. As you will appreciate more16 clearly than I do, apparently you have to book the time.17 Unfortunately, we have booked the time for 3 o'clock.18 It takes a little time to set it up. I will have to19 rise now. If you will be good enough to come back this20 afternoon. I am sorry to interrupt your evidence.21 Thank you very much.22 (2.50 pm)23 (Short Break)24 (3.00 pm)25 LORD HUTTON: Mr Davies, I understand the video link is not

1401 working in New York. So that at least gives us the


15/28

2 advantage we can proceed with your evidence.3 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Davies, we were still at the Governors'4 meeting.5 A. Yes.6 Q. I understand, from looking at the notes and the minutes,7 that there was some discussion about Ms Watts and her

8 broadcast on Newsnight.9 A. In the previous week or 10 days prior to the meeting it10 had become apparent to a lot of us, including myself,11 that Ms Watts' broadcast was rather similar to12 Mr Gilligan's in many respects; and the Board of13 Governors was circulated transcripts of both the14 broadcasts by Ms Watts on 2nd and 4th June. So15 Governors were able to compare and contrast the two16 broadcasts if they wished to and I definitely did17 myself.18 Q. We have had Ms Watts' own views, quite carefully19 expressed, about whether or not Mr Gilligan's report and20 hers were similar. Have you heard of her views and seen

21 the correspondence that has been written --22 A. Yes, I have, yes.23 Q. -- on her behalf?24 A. Yes, I have.25 Q. Did you have anything to say in that respect?

1411 A. I think the interpretation that individual BBC2 journalists put on their reports is entirely for them;3 and it is a great strength of the organisation that4 journalists and editors can come to their own views.5 I think she is entirely entitled to come to her views.6 I do not share them in every particular; I think there

7 are greater similarities between the broadcasts than8 perhaps Ms Watts does. She is, as I say, entirely9 entitled to state her view.10 Q. At this stage, do you know who Mr Gilligan's source is?11 A. No.12 Q. Do you know who Ms Watts' source is?13 A. No.14 Q. And is that the usual situation?15 A. That is entirely normal. Certainly at the Board of16 Governors level it would have been extremely irregular17 to have known the names of sources on a Government or18 political story.19 Q. Did you go into the editorial process that had led up to20 the broadcast?21 A. Yes, we did.22 Q. Were you satisfied with that process?23 A. Yes. At the time, of course, one of the main complaints24 being made by Mr Campbell and the Government was that25 the BBC was wrong to rely on a single uncorroborated

1421 source to make this report; and so a lot of our time was2 spent on determining whether the editor of Today had3 been properly reassured or reassured himself properly4 about the nature of the source, and whether proper5 editorial processes had occurred prior to broadcast.6 That was something the Director of News and Director7 General were very happy with.


16/28

8 Q. Did you look at the notes that had been made before9 broadcast by the editor and night editor?10 A. No. Again, this was something that would have been the11 role of management and not the role of the Board of12 Governors.13 Q. I appreciate that. The management come to you, the

14 Governors are looking at it. If, at the end of the day,15 you are not going to look at any of the underlying16 material, does it not become difficult to exercise any17 judgment about the management's own review?18 A. Well, certainly in my case I live with the management,19 I work four days a week at the BBC and I can form,20 I would argue, the best possible judgment myself about21 their honesty, reliability and diligence. I certainly22 formed the view they were more than capable of coming to23 these judgments themselves and then reporting them to24 the Board and being questioned on them. That is very25 different from the Board actually trying to duplicate

1431 the activities of management.2 Q. At the end of the meeting you issue a statement,3 BBC/6/111. This was approved by the Board of Governors,4 was it?5 A. This was approved by all of the individual Governors6 unanimously, I think.7 Q. And you say that you had met in the evening, you had8 questioned Greg Dyke and Mr Sambrook and you reiterate9 that the overall coverage has been impartial and you10 reject that complaint and ask Mr Campbell to withdraw11 it. You consider that the Today Programme properly12 followed BBC producers' guidelines in handling the

13 report. You say why it was appropriate to use a single14 source.15 You do say this:16 "Stories based on senior intelligence sources are17 a case in point."18 Which might, to a casual reader, suggest that the19 story is based on a senior intelligence source. Was20 that your understanding?21 A. No. It was my understanding that the source was22 credible and reliable, and there was nothing said at the23 meeting that suggested that the source was a senior24 intelligence source. This was drafted in very late in25 the drafting process and I did not recognise that there

1441 could be room to misunderstand this particular form of2 words. Of course, I did not know who the source was at3 the time. If anybody did misunderstand it, I regret4 that.5 Q. Then you go on to the BBC journalist for Newsnight, that6 is obviously the Ms Watts report, and single7 allegations, but not singled out for criticism by the8 Government.9 At this stage, did all the Governors have10 a transcript of all that had been said on the Today11 Programme?12 A. Yes. Yes.13 Q. And did they not consider: well, look, at 6.07 he said


17/28

14 something that is fundamentally different from what he15 is saying later on in the day?16 A. I think there was a recognition that there were17 differences in wording between the 6.07 and the 7.3218 broadcast. I will speak for myself and not on behalf of19 individual Governors, but my own view was that in

20 a continuing rolling live news forum what happened was21 Mr Gilligan put on record at 7.32 something slightly22 different from what he had said in the live two-way at23 6.07. But that does happen very often in radio news.24 It is a continuous medium where there is almost25 iteration between, you know, reporters and questioners,

1451 interviewers. I think that is what was happening that2 day. So, yes, I was aware of the difference between the3 6.07 and the 7.32; but I felt the 7.32 had put straight4 any of the confusions that may have arisen as a result5 of the 6.07.

6 Q. Was not one way of dealing with the correspondence from7 Mr Campbell, which I think everyone had decided they had8 had enough of, to say: we have put right the situation,9 and, you know, to the extent it was ever said unscripted10 at 6.07 we are sorry, we did not mean to say that?11 A. I felt two things. (1), I would not say that the degree12 of focus that we are now putting on this was in my head13 at the time. I think that would be a vast exaggeration.14 But I felt, insofar as I had thought about it, that the15 7.32 had essentially done that.16 Q. Continuing over the page, at the top you note that there17 had been a general pattern of concern about the18 dossiers.

19 LORD HUTTON: Mr Dingemans, I am so sorry, it is entirely my20 fault. We are now at BBC -- what should I look at in my21 file?22 MR DINGEMANS: BBC/6/11, my Lord, and then 112.23 LORD HUTTON: Yes, thank you.24 MR DINGEMANS: You say the reports have fitted into25 a general pattern of concern with security contacts.

1461 The Board were satisfied it was in the public interest2 to broadcast and it would have been wrong to suppress3 either story. You do consider they should have kept4 a clearer account of dealings with the Ministry of5 Defence and also ask No. 10 for a response.6 A. Yes.7 Q. But you note there were firm denials that were8 broadcast. You are saying you are going to look at the9 rules under which BBC reporters are permitted to write10 for newspapers.11 A. Yes.12 Q. Then you put on record that the BBC had not accused the13 Prime Minister of lying.14 A. Yes. The penultimate paragraph here is a very, very15 strong statement and extremely unusual statement for the16 Board of Governors to make. I certainly have never seen17 a statement being made by the Board of Governors18 anywhere near this. And the reason that I and the19 Governors were eager to put it in was we were aware of


18/28

20 the issue that his Lordship raised earlier about21 reporting the views of a source even though credible and22 reliable; and I was very much hoping that the23 Prime Minister and the Government would see this as the24 BBC saying: we believe we were right to broadcast, we25 believe the source's views were accurately reported, but

1471 we are not independently validating those views and we2 are aware that the Prime Minister has put on record3 a denial, which we are not questioning -- we are not4 questioning that denial.5 Q. Can I take you --6 LORD HUTTON: But if you are not questioning the denial,7 might that not lead one on then to take the view that8 one would to some extent withdraw the report that the9 source had made? I fully appreciate the point you are10 making about you are reporting a source, but I still11 have difficulty with this concept: that something is

12 broadcast, it is heard by thousands and thousands of13 people, as I think the Prime Minister said in his14 evidence this morning, he was concerned that this was an15 accusation being made against the Government, and16 whether the average listener draws a distinction between17 a report that the Government has done something and18 a source reporting that the Government has done19 something; and if you were satisfied that the20 Prime Minister was not lying, might it not have called21 for perhaps even a qualified withdrawal of the first22 part of the report?23 A. Well, my Lord, I did not think that the BBC had any24 evidence to suggest that the source would have wished to

25 withdraw his views. Now, sometimes in life you get the

1481 same event being watched by two different people with2 two different interpretations of the same event.3 LORD HUTTON: Quite. Yes.4 A. And I was open minded as to whether that had happened in5 this case. Frequently in political coverage you will6 get two versions of the same event without wishing to7 question the integrity of either version.8 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. Yes. Yes. Thank you.9 A. And it is part of the process of news to put both of10 those into the public domain and allow people to weigh11 them against each other and come to their own views.12 LORD HUTTON: Yes.13 MR DINGEMANS: BBC/14/105 is an e-mail that I think you sent14 after the meeting. It is dated 7th July. You attach15 a clean copy of the statement which was issued the night16 before and there was some rush in relation to getting17 the statement out before the deadline that I think you18 refer to. You say this:19 "Chairing the meeting, I was very impressed by the20 seriousness and toughness displayed by the Governors.21 My view is that we demonstrated that the Board of22 Governors is not a body which can be easily bullied,23 either by politicians or the management. I am sure that24 we will benefit from demonstrating this in long run,25 even if we get some of the familiar flak in the


19/28


20/28

5 grateful for that, but he still thought that the story6 should be retracted.7 I said: Prime Minister, I just do not know that we8 have the grounds on which to do that, because we have9 been reporting somebody, we believe, accurately.10 I think we both left the conversation feeling

11 that -- well, I certainly did -- we should put calming12 pressure on our respective organisations to try to move13 the decibel count significantly lower; and I took steps14 to do that in the next 24 hours.15 Q. You did not feel able to correct the original story,16 notwithstanding what had been reported to have been said17 by the Chairman of the JIC; is that right?18 A. At the Governors meeting -- I do not think Mr Blair19 raised that in the conversation that I can recall -- we20 certainly discussed whether or not there had been21 sufficient BBC reporting of the denial by the Chairman22 of the JIC. We asked management to come back to us with23 a study on that subject, which is going to happen.

24 Q. It has not yet happened?25 A. I think it is under preparation but we have not had

1521 another board meeting that could have taken this2 subject.3 Q. The FAC report is then published; and the BBC published4 a statement on it, part of which noted that there had5 been a political split, party political split on6 Alastair Campbell's role in the preparation of the7 dossier, and Mr Campbell himself had put out8 a statement. You obviously recall the statements that9 were issued?

10 A. I do.11 Q. And what was your hope after those statements had been12 made?13 A. Well, I thought that Mr Campbell's statement was a good14 deal more measured than the public tone he had been15 adopting in the previous fortnight, and I was very16 encouraged by that. I, perhaps, felt that maybe17 Mr Blair had mentioned to Mr Campbell that it would be18 a good idea -- I have no evidence for that but I thought19 coming out of our telephone conversation that was20 perhaps what had happened; and I thought that the BBC21 should reciprocate with a notable toning down of22 rhetoric, and I suggested to the Director General,23 actually via the Director of News, that the Director24 General should say something conciliatory in a speech he25 was making the next day.

1531 Q. What did he say that was conciliatory?2 A. Well, basically we felt that Mr Campbell the previous3 day had, from his point of view perfectly legitimately,4 said that the FAC had cleared his name -- I would have5 said the same thing in his circumstances. We had said6 the FAC had justified our news reporting. But7 importantly Mr Campbell said that he was not making any8 generalised allegations against the BBC's journalism;9 and we took that as a big step forward because I think10 it was the first time he had said that in public. So


21/28

11 the Director General, the next day in Birmingham, said12 thank you to Mr Campbell for saying that. He said:13 look, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree14 about whether the BBC should have carried the report it15 carried, but it is time to move on now.16 Q. Looking at it from the sidelines, Mr Campbell says:

17 look, I am sorry, I made too many allegations against18 the BBC, I withdraw it. The BBC say: we are glad you19 have withdrawn it, we agree to disagree, let us go on.20 It does not seem to the observer that the BBC is21 offering very much by way of an olive branch.22 A. I took it to be really quite a considerable improvement23 in terms of the decibel level of the rhetoric. After24 all, my conversation with Mr Blair -- I do not think we25 had agreed on the fundamental point and that was not

1541 perhaps going to disappear, but I was hoping we could2 discuss it and handle it in a way that was not going to

3 be quite so noisy.4 Q. Mr Blair has given evidence this morning about the5 conversation he had with you, and he said that in the6 course of that he had mentioned that an official had7 come forward. Do you recall that?8 A. I do. I think at the very end of the conversation9 Mr Blair said that he had become aware recently that10 someone had come forward to the MoD saying that he was11 Mr Gilligan's source; and I think I said two things to12 him. I said: bear in mind, Prime Minister, that13 Mr Gilligan has said that he spoke to three or four14 people in preparing his reports, although only had one15 principal source for part of them. I said: I do not

16 know who the source is, Prime Minister, but bear in mind17 he talked to three or four. And I said: also bear in18 mind that Ms Watts' reports were somewhat similar to19 Mr Gilligan's, and therefore were taken by me as20 corroboration that Mr Gilligan had reported his source21 broadly accurately. I do not think the Prime Minister22 had been at all aware of Ms Watts' reports.23 Q. What was your hope and expectation now in relation to24 media coverage, especially after the speech that you25 report in Birmingham?

1551 A. I was very hopeful, and I had said this in an e-mail to2 Governors, I think that day, that the matter could now3 disappear off the front pages. I did not think that it4 was ended, I thought the -- you know, the fundamental5 difference was still there, but that relations could be6 much more amicable; and I felt my conversation with the7 Prime Minister was very amicable.8 Q. That is 7th July. We have heard from Mr Sambrook and9 Mr Hoon that they have a meeting on 8th July. Were you10 made aware of that?11 A. Yes. The Director of News phoned me to say that he had12 been called in urgently to a meeting, I think around13 lunchtime on 8th July. Then he called me back later to14 say: look, I am a bit puzzled about this, because I was15 called in urgently -- from I think it was his son's16 sports day or something like that -- and then the


22/28

17 meeting seems to have been inconsequential. It was18 about routine matters that were not particularly time19 sensitive, in Mr Sambrook's view. We were just puzzled.20 We did not know what was going on.21 Q. You get a letter on 8th July.22 Can I take you to MoD/1/66 from Mr Hoon. He has

23 told us about the circumstances in which he comes to24 write to you:25 "Dear Gavyn,

1561 "I am writing to draw your attention to an MoD2 statement which we shall be issuing later today ...3 "You will see that we have not named the4 official ... We would, however, be prepared to disclose5 his name to you in confidence ... in the interests of6 resolving what has become a management problem for both7 our organisations."8 He has explained why he thought you had a management

9 problem as well as the MoD.10 What was your reaction to that?11 A. At the time I was puzzled by what he meant by12 "management problem".13 Q. I think he has now explained it to suggest that14 Mr Gilligan had not accurately reported what was15 happening.16 A. Okay. Well, that occurred to me, but I did not really17 fully understand what he meant by "management problem".18 I thought the letter was puzzling and I did not really19 know what the tactics or strategy lying behind the20 letter was.21 In any event, I could not have disclosed the name

22 myself because I did not know the name.23 Q. I think you respond at MoD/1/68:24 "Dear Geoff,25 "Thank you for your letter ...

1571 "... the offer in your letter seems to be an attempt2 to force the BBC News Division to reveal the name of the3 source..."4 Was there any correspondence after that?5 A. Yes. First of all, on this one, Mr Dingemans, my6 suspicions that something was up were raised when7 I found out that the letter from Mr Hoon to myself had8 been released to the press, and I felt that if there9 was -- if this was a genuine approach to handle10 management difficulties between the two organisations it11 probably would not have been released to the press; and12 that made me more suspicious about that maybe something13 was going on that I had not fathomed.14 Q. Was there any reason or any speculation that you thought15 of at the time about what might have happened in16 relation to the official who had come forward?17 A. No. I thought that maybe what was going on was that an18 official had come forward who they felt might discredit19 the Gilligan reports. But that was an absolute shot in20 the dark by me; I had no idea what was going on really.21 Q. Was there any reason that you felt that the source22 should not be confirmed?


23/28

23 A. Well, at this particular stage he had not named the24 source to me. He did that the following day.25 Q. Can I take you to his letter of the following day?

1581 A. Yes.

2 Q. MoD/1/71.3 A. Yes.4 Q. He now gives you the name Dr Kelly. So what is wrong,5 now, with saying: yes, it is Dr Kelly?6 A. Well, I think what was wrong was first of all I did not,7 of course, know yet whether Dr Kelly was the source. In8 fact, I believe this is the first time I had -- it is9 definitely the first time I had seen the name of10 Dr Kelly. So I was unable to confirm or deny it. But11 I did not believe that BBC management should be12 prevailed upon by me to confirm or deny whether this13 gentleman was the source. By the time we got this14 letter, I think I am right in saying that Mr Hoon had

15 also released some details of what Dr Kelly had said to16 Mr Gilligan --17 Q. Yes.18 A. -- and there were some very, very significant19 differences between that account and Mr Gilligan's20 account.21 Q. Had you seen Mr Gilligan's account?22 A. Well, I had heard --23 Q. In writing.24 A. I had heard it on the radio. What occurred to me here25 was: look, I do not know whether Dr Kelly is actually

159

1 Mr Gilligan's source, but if he is he has probably said2 some very different things to Mr Gilligan to what he has3 said to his employer; and my feeling, again management4 were the only people in possession of the name, but my5 feeling was that if we had come forward and said: yes6 actually that is the source, if it indeed were, we would7 have been betraying the confidence, number 1, because8 the source had never suggested that we should divulge9 his name, and number 2 we would have effectively been10 telling his employer that he had told Mr Gilligan more11 than he was now owning up to his employer. And12 I thought that was a very bad way to treat the13 confidence of a source.14 Q. So what steps did you take to deal with the letter?15 A. What I did was I was the only person that saw the name16 "David Kelly" or the position. I tippexed that out and17 I showed the redacted letter to the Director General;18 and I think within a very short time we heard that the19 name of David Kelly was circulating among journalists20 and, you know, I did not know how that had happened.21 Q. We have heard from some of the journalists. Can I take22 you to your reply at MoD/1/72, where effectively you say23 that you are not going to correspond any further.24 A. Yes, that is correct. By this time I had had two25 letters from Mr Hoon, one of which I had taken to be

1601 puzzling and the other of which had contradicted the


24/28

2 first by giving me a name he said he would only give me3 in confidence. So, at this stage, I really did not know4 what was going on, to be honest.5 Q. Dr Kelly comes to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs6 Committee on 15th July. We have heard about that. We7 have also seen, now, an e-mail that Mr Gilligan has sent

8 to Mr Chidgey. That is FAC/6/2. We have seen other9 similar e-mails that he sent -- I think to Mr Maples and10 Mr Ottaway -- where you can see he is writing to11 a researcher saying he had been doing some research on12 David Kelly and he was suggesting some questions for13 Dr Kelly. If you go down to the bottom of the page you14 can see:15 "He told my colleague Susan Watts, science editor of16 Newsnight..." And deals with that.17 If you read that as a lay person you might think18 that he is suggesting that Dr Kelly was Susan Watts'19 source. Did you know of this e-mail?20 A. I had absolutely no idea whatsoever, no.

21 Q. And what is your view on journalists sending this type22 of e-mail to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee?23 A. I believe that both Mr Gilligan -- I believe that24 Mr Gilligan is putting in another witness statement on25 this matter.

1611 Q. Yes.2 A. I think this is something the Director General may wish3 to look at and come to the Board of Governors on. But4 I will give you the view if you wish me to.5 Q. Well, we have heard, if you go over the page at6 FAC/6/3,~that Dr Kelly reported to his friend

7 Wing Commander Clark that he was, I think, thrown a bit8 by the question about Susan Watts. We can see here9 a quote from Susan Watts' broadcast being set out. In10 the light of that, perhaps I can press you for what your11 view is on the matter?12 A. I certainly believe that it is wrong for any journalist13 to divulge the source of another journalist's work.14 I do not know how Mr Gilligan could have done that15 because he did not know Susan Watts' source. So that16 puzzles me. I do not know how he could have. Maybe17 there was a misunderstanding there, I do not know.18 I would say that Mr Gilligan, at this stage, was under19 enormous pressure and perhaps felt that the FAC was20 trying to discredit him as a journalist and perhaps felt21 that he needed to take steps to counter that; but of22 course, I enormously regret anything that happened at23 this stage which may have increased the pressures on24 Dr Kelly.25 Q. We have heard after Dr Kelly's death that there was

1621 a further statement issued by the BBC confirming that2 Dr Kelly was the source; and Ms Watts has told us that3 she perceived there was pressure to tie in Mr Gilligan's4 source, who we now know to be Dr Kelly, with her source,5 who we now know to be Dr Kelly. Was this a fair6 comment?7 A. Excuse me, was what a fair comment?


25/28

8 Q. Ms Watts' comment to the effect that there was pressure9 to tie in the two sources.10 A. I mean, there certainly was not that I ever noted or11 I was ever party to. I do not believe Ms Watts came12 under pressure to do that.13 The BBC -- and I am sure this is true of the

14 Director of News -- was under pressure to ensure that15 the stories, the reports, were valid and were well16 sourced; and under those circumstances I think it was17 entirely legitimate for the Director of News to press18 the editor of Newsnight and the journalist concerned on19 their sources and on whether those sources were credible20 and reliable. Indeed, if that had not happened on the21 Today Programme, the Governors could never have been22 assured of that at their 6th July meeting.23 So I think it was entirely justified for the24 Director of News to ask the questions. But I do not25 believe that there was, to my knowledge, undue pressure

1631 on Ms Watts.2 LORD HUTTON: Do you mean by that, Mr Davies, that3 Mr Sambrook was right asking whether Newsnight were sure4 of the standing and reliability of the source as opposed5 to asking for the actual name of the source?6 A. Under normal circumstances I think the standing and7 reliability would have been what was needed. I am not8 aware whether Mr Sambrook did ask for the name. I do9 not know that.10 LORD HUTTON: But I think it is my fault, perhaps not11 entirely understanding your answer. I just want to be12 clear in my own mind. When you said that the Director

13 of News was right or justified in pressing Newsnight14 about certain matters, just repeat again, please, what15 were those matters?16 A. There were clear similarities between the two news17 reports.18 LORD HUTTON: Yes.19 A. One of those two news reports was under enormous20 scrutiny on the grounds of perhaps misreporting.21 LORD HUTTON: Yes.22 A. I think it was reasonable for Mr Sambrook to ask23 Newsnight questions about the source in order to try to24 elucidate whether it would have helped him make25 a judgment on the reliability of his Today Programme

1641 reports. I do not think it was reasonable and he did2 not pressurise or bully anybody on Newsnight, and3 I think there is a very clear e-mail in our pack4 somewhere that shows Richard Sambrook saying: do not5 worry about it, if you do not wish to do this, do not do6 it.7 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. But you thought in the particular8 circumstances that prevailed Mr Sambrook was entitled to9 actually ask for the name of the source?10 A. Well, your Lordship, I did not know he was doing it, but11 I can tell you one thing: Mr Sambrook himself was under12 considerable pressure from myself and the Director13 General to ensure that these reports were reliably


26/28

14 sourced.15 LORD HUTTON: Yes. I see. Yes. Thank you.16 MR DINGEMANS: I was really asking in the context of the17 statements made after Dr Kelly's death. Can I take you18 to BBC/17/58, which is an early draft, in fact it is the19 second draft of the Governors' statement. If you go

20 down, you can see the expression of sympathy and:21 "Dr Kelly was the principal source for both22 Andrew Gilligan's report on the Today Programme and for23 Susan Watts' Newsnight reports."24 Then you set out or were proposing to set out the25 account of Andrew Gilligan's conversation, the account

1651 of Ms Watts' conversation, with all the details2 et cetera, and make a series of comments in relation to3 that, which at least indicates that Ms Watts' story, at4 that stage, is being used at least to assist with the5 presentation of Mr Gilligan's story.

6 A. Is this -- this is a draft of -- a document that never7 got released?8 Q. Yes, not released.9 A. Not released.10 Q. What was released, I can show, is BBC/17/91.11 A. I know what was released. I did not see these drafts at12 all. I think, however, it is fair to say, certainly in13 my mind, I can only speak for myself, that I did regard14 Ms Watts' conversations as reported on Newsnight as15 broadly corroborative evidence for Mr Gilligan's16 reports. As I have said before, I did not regard them17 as identical.18 Q. Then, I think if one goes to BBC/17/96, we can see an

19 e-mail that is distributed on 21st July and some20 responses to it, but the main text begins at 97.21 The e-mail last week, which I have taken you to, was22 the e-mail following the Governors' meeting, I think.23 A. Yes.24 Q. "... my natural pessimism was telling me that the WMD25 story was far from over, despite the general support

1661 which the Governors and the BBC were getting from many2 sources at the time. However, even at my most3 pessimistic, I certainly never anticipated the tragic4 turn of events ..."5 This was an e-mail you sent round after Dr Kelly's6 death, is that right?7 A. That is right, yes.8 Q. I think it continues to 98, 99 and to 100.9 A. Yes. This gave what at that stage was my reading of10 some of the issues that had been raised following the11 BBC confirming that Dr Kelly was the source for12 Mr Gilligan's stories.13 Q. Is there anything else that you know of the14 circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death that you can15 assist his Lordship with?16 A. No.17 Q. And is there anything else that you wanted to add?18 A. I think on behalf of the whole BBC I would like to put19 on record that we enormously regret the death of


27/28

20 Dr Kelly. The BBC has the deepest sympathy for21 Dr Kelly's family; and all of us in the BBC are22 profoundly sorry about the tragic events of the last23 two months and we will do our utmost to learn important24 lessons for the future.25 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Davies.

1671 MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, with Mr Mangold disappearing, that2 is the end of the evidence for this week.3 LORD HUTTON: I will rise now and sit again on Monday at4 10.30. Thank you.5 (3.40 pm)6 (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on7 Monday 1st September 2003)891011

12131415161718192021222324

25

1681 INDEX2 PAGE3 MR ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR .................. 14 (called)56 Examined by MR DINGEMANS ..................... 178 MR GAVYN DAVIES (called) ......................... 102910 Examined by MR DINGEMANS ..................... 102111213141516171819202122232425


28/28

169

hearing transcript - 28 august 2003 afternoon

Documents