News Search Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind Site search Web search Story archive		14-8-2003 Scotsman The Hutton Inquiry: Scientist refused to name Campbell By Gethin Chamberlain Defence Correspondent MISGUIDED and false attempts to manipulate stories, actions taken not for proper purposes, significant differences in accounts which were being ignored, allegations of considerable pressure being exerted on an individual to back a dubious claim. It was certainly powerful stuff. The BBC had been insisting for weeks that it would use the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the government scientist Dr David Kelly to produce evidence to back up allegations by its defence and diplomatic correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, that No 10 had "sexed-up", in his words, its dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by inserting a claim that those weapons could be made ready for use within 45 minutes, while knowing the claim was false. By its refusal to distance itself from the report or apologise to the government, the corporation appeared convinced that evidence from the Newsnight science editor Susan Watts and 10 O'Clock News special correspondent Gavin Hewitt would vindicate its belief that Mr Gilligan's story had been correct. The corporation had let it be known that Ms Watts had a tape recording of a conversation with Dr Kelly which, it believed, would be dynamite. Dynamite it was, but yesterday it blew up in the BBC's face. As Ms Watts took the stand on the third day of Lord Hutton's inquiry, it became clear that she had not come to praise Mr Gilligan, but to bury him, and with him the BBC's carefully constructed defence of his story. Beginning her evidence on Tuesday afternoon, Ms Watts had seemed nervous and hesitant, but yesterday morning she was a woman transformed. Almost from the off, it was clear that whatever was in the tape, she did not believe it substantiated her colleague's story. She did not believe that her own report, which went out on BBC2's Newsnight programme, backed up Mr Gilligan's claims on Radio 4's Today. On the contrary, she said, she was aware of Mr Gilligan's reporting and she felt there were significant differences between what Dr Kelly had told her and what Mr Gilligan said had been told to him. "He (Dr Kelly) did not say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly did not say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in government," she said. "In fact, he denied specifically that Alastair Campbell was involved." Unprompted, she went on. Her reports were quite different from those of Mr Gilligan. "I did not mention Alastair Campbell," she said. "I did not say that he or any member of the government had inserted the claim and I did not say that my source was a member of the intelligence services." But what had prompted such an outburst? It was to be another hour before that became clear, but when it did, it was damning. After Dr Kelly's death, she explained, she had been asked by Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news, for the name of the source for her story. She refused, she said, because Dr Kelly had spoken to her on the understanding she would not give out his name. The only person she had told was her editor, to give him confidence in the story, but that was on the understanding that he told no-one else. Mr Sambrook pressed her, but she stood firm. Eventually, the BBC paid for her to take independent advice. Why was that, asked James Dingemans QC, the counsel to the inquiry? Then it came out. "I felt under some considerable pressure from the BBC to reveal the identity of my source," she said, "and I felt that the purpose was to corroborate the Andrew Gilligan allegations and not for any proper news purposes." Throughout the day, Ms Watts refused to budge from the line that what Dr Kelly had said to her did not substantiate Mr Gilligan's story, even when it appeared to lend the BBC's case some credence. Discussing a conversation she had with Dr Kelly on 12 May, she said: "He did not think the British had a definitive position on Iraq's exact capabilities and when Bush and Straw said they had such and such, that was spin." She did not appear to regard this as particularly significant. And then there was that tape. Fuzzy, frequently indistinct despite the best efforts of experts to enhance its quality, it provided the first opportunity during the inquiry for those in Courtroom 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice to hear the voice of the man whose death had brought them there. Ms Watts had recorded the conversation, rather than taking extensive notes. She wanted, she said, to speak to him about the Today programme's report on the 45-minute claim in the dossier because it had reminded her of something Dr Kelly had said to her in a previous conversation. There was the sound of a phone dialling, and then Dr Kelly's voice on the other end of the line: "David Kelly," he said. They talked for more than a quarter of an hour, ranging over a number of subjects, but it was the 45-minute claim in which she showed most interest. There was a passing reference to Mr Campbell in relation to that part of the dossier, but it was unclear what Dr Kelly meant. "You'll have to remember that I'm not part of the intelligence community," he cautioned her. As for the 45 minutes: "It was a statement that was made and it just got out of proportion," he told her. "They were desperate for information ... they were pushing hard for information which could be released ... that was one that popped up and it was seized on ... and it was unfortunate that it was. Which is why there is the argument between the intelligence services and Cabinet Office /No 10, because things were picked up on and once they've picked up on it you can't pull back, that's the problem." But he seemed unconcerned, telling her he understood "the word-smithing" was important and the intelligence community was cautious. Once you get people presenting things for public consumption then they use different words, he said. "I don't think they're being willfully dishonest. I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best." One of the problems with the dossier was that it was all presented in a very black and white way, he said. But who, she pressed him, had inserted the 45-minute claim? Would he say it was Alastair Campbell? "No, I can't," he replied. "All I can say is the No 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't, but I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it." Despite that, Ms Watt was adamant Dr Kelly was not accusing Mr Campbell. "In fact, in my mind he specifically denies that Alastair Campbell was involved personally by saying 'No, I cannot'," she told Mr Dingemans.
		................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved.