|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
13-8-2003 Scotsman The Hutton Enquiry: Gilligan reporting 'flawed and lacking judgment' By Gethin Chamberlain Defence Correspondent IF THE first day of the Hutton inquiry was bad for the government, yesterday was a truly horrible day for Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter whose claims that Alastair Campbell "sexed up" the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction triggered the row between his employers and Downing Street which ultimately ended in the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly. Mr Campbell, the Prime Minister's director of communications, could not have scripted the morning session better. Under the sceptical gaze of Lord Hutton and in the face of relentless questioning from James Dingemans, QC, counsel to the inquiry, the central plank of Mr Gilligan's claims - that Downing Street, and specifically Mr Campbell, had inserted a false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be fired at 45 minutes' notice - was torn apart. By the end of the morning session, the inquiry had learned that Mr Gilligan's editor had admitted that a good story had been marred by flawed reporting, Mr Gilligan's loose use of language was a millstone round the BBC's neck, and he lacked judgment in the way he had phrased his report. The BBC governors had accepted that "careful language had not been applied by Andrew Gilligan throughout". There were concerns among the governors that Radio 4's flagship Today programme, for which Mr Gilligan worked, was behaving like a tabloid newspaper. Mr Gilligan had been forced to admit that, with the benefit of hindsight, he had been wrong to make the claim. He was accused of letting his fractious relationship with Mr Campbell influence the way he reported the story. Yet by the end of the day, the tide had turned and engulfed Mr Campbell, too. Both Mr Gilligan and Susan Watts, Newsnight's science correspondent, insisted Dr Kelly told them that Mr Campbell had played a part in transforming the document. Yet Mr Gilligan certainly had the worst of it, although it started well. Taking the witness stand in a smart, dark suit, he appeared to have lost a little weight and looked calm and relaxed. He had met Dr Kelly more than two years earlier, he said, and regarded him almost as a teacher; someone who wanted to share knowledge. Mr Gilligan's notes showed that, at the first of their two meetings this year, Dr Kelly had referred to the government dossier and told him it contained "no smoking gun - nothing you wouldn't know". But slowly it began to fall apart. Questioned on the day of Dr Kelly's death by Richard Sambrook, the BBC's head of news, he had claimed he met the weapons expert four or five times. Now he had to accept that this was a mistake. "I had a good deal on my mind that day - I wasn't very happy," he explained. Dr Kelly had also kept notes of their meetings, and they did not tally. Mr Gilligan, no longer looking quite so composed, had to deny that they had met when Dr Kelly claimed. And their accounts of the meeting of 22 May could not have been more different. Mr Gilligan claimed he had taken notes on his Psion personal organiser - a small computer with a keyboard and screen. Dr Kelly recalled that he had taken out a pen and notepad. Mr Gilligan said Dr Kelly raised the subject of Mr Campbell; Dr Kelly had said Mr Gilligan did. His print-out of the notes he said he had typed while they talked hardly helped. The first note read: "transformed wk before pub to make it sexier the classic was the 45 mins most things indossier were dbl sc but that was single-source." Pressed by Mr Dingemans, Mr Gilligan translated. Dr Kelly had told him, he said, the dossier had been "transformed a week before publication to make it sexier". A classic example of that transformation was the 45 minutes claim, he said, for while most things in the dossier were double sourced, that came from a single source. People in the intelligence world weren't happy with the dossier because it did not reflect the considered view they put forward, he said. Then came the big claim. When he had asked Dr Kelly who was responsible for the transformation, he said, Dr Kelly had volunteered the name Campbell. According to Mr Gilligan, Dr Kelly told him it was real information but unreliable and included against his wishes. Mr Dingemans was curious. Who, he asked, used the word "sexier" to describe the document's transformation? Mr Gilligan conceded he used it first. Lord Hutton also sought reassurance. Was Mr Gilligan clear in his recollection, he asked, that the name Campbell was first mentioned by Dr Kelly? He was sure, Mr Gilligan said. An hour into the morning's hearing, Mr Gilligan was on the back foot, attempting to justify his interpretation of the story. He said he was suspicious as there had been little mention of the 45-minutes claim after the dossier was published, but admitted: "None of this evidence was conclusive, of course." Lord Hutton challenged him over why Today, which carried his story, had not offered the government a chance to reply. A letter from Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, to the BBC was produced which complained that Mr Gilligan had not given the Ministry of Defence a chance to respond. Mr Gilligan had to accept that he did not put the 45-minute claim to the MoD before the story was broadcast. But it was a live interview for the Today programme, in which Mr Gilligan asserted that the government had been warned that the claim was wrong, which proved his real undoing. Pressed hard by Mr Dingemans, he said he thought it was a reasonable conclusion to draw from Dr Kelly's remarks. Then he conceded that he had gone too far: "I have to say, with the benefit of hindsight, I think it wasn't wrong to have said, but it wasn't perfect either. I think, on reflection, I didn't use exactly the right language. It wasn't wrong, but it wasn't perfect either." He hadn't meant to suggest the government had lied, he said, and, on reflection, he should have considered the impact of what he had said. "I did not intend to give the impression, and I have corrected it, that the 45-minute claim was fabricated and the work of the intelligence services." It was a humiliating climbdown, but worse was to come. On the computer screens on every desk of the courtroom, and on the giant screen on the wall, appeared a copy of a BBC memo from Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme, to Stephen Mitchell, the head of Radio News. It was damning. It read: "This story was a good piece of investigative journalism marred by flawed reporting. Our biggest millstone has been his loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology." Then another document, this time from the BBC governors, complained that "careful language had not been applied by AG (Mr Gilligan) throughout". Pressed again on what happened at their May meeting, Mr Gilligan tried a new tack. Dr Kelly, he claimed, had agreed that he could use certain quotes. But he had switched off his organiser by this point, he explained, so there was no note to back up his claim. "You didn't think that important to note," inquired Mr Dingemans. "I think in retrospect I should have noted it," Mr Gilligan replied. Then the bombshell came: previously unpublished evidence which Mr Gilligan gave to the Commons' foreign affairs select committee on 17 July. He told MPs that the late weapons expert confined his allegations against Mr Campbell to the alleged overall transformation of the September 2002 dossier shortly before its publication. According to a transcript of his evidence published yesterday afternoon by the committee, Mr Gilligan told the committee: "The only point at which my source mentioned the name Campbell was in respect of the transformation of the dossier, not in respect of the insertion of the 45-minute claim. I am pretty sure that is right." If Mr Gilligan was hoping the worst was over, he was wrong. Lord Hutton wanted to know why he had not contacted Dr Kelly after the story broke. Mr Gilligan looked uncomfortable. He had not called his mobile, but he tried to call him from a call box, unsuccessfully. It was a mistake, Mr Gilligan conceded, to have told the House foreign affairs committee that his source stuck by the story when he had not contacted him again. Another BBC memo said the corporation's weakness in the case lay in a lack of reliable notes. Mr Dingemans suggested it was Mr Gilligan's use of language that had transformed something Dr Kelly had said from a "chatter in the air" to something more substantial.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
