|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
15-8-2003 Scotsman The Hutton Inquiry: Blair joins Hoon in the frame over the targetting of Dr Kelly By GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN at The Royal Courts of Justice THE government weapons expert Dr David Kelly was forced to undergo a second grilling by Ministry of Defence managers over his contacts with a BBC journalist, after a personal intervention by the Prime Minister, the Hutton Inquiry was told yesterday. Following Tony Blair's request, Dr Kelly was summoned back to London on 7 July, at very short notice, from a training day ahead of a trip he was preparing to make to Iraq to join the hunt for Saddam Hussein's weapons. By the end of the inquiry's fourth day, it was clear that in the days leading up to his suicide on 18 July, Dr Kelly was placed under enormous pressure by the MoD, which was in turn being orchestrated by the intelligence services and No10. The inquiry heard that the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, overrode the advice of Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's most senior civil servant, to order Dr Kelly to give evidence in public to the Commons foreign affairs committee. On a day of dramatic new evidence, it was revealed that: Mr Blair said Dr Kelly should undergo a second interview over his part in the BBC Radio 4 story accusing the government of "sexing up" its dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - just three days after his first round of questioning. Mr Hoon refused to accept the advice of Sir Kevin and ordered Dr Kelly to appear in public before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee - because a private hearing would be "presentationally difficult" for the government. John Scarlett, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee, recommended Dr Kelly should face a "security style" interview. The memo was written to Sir David Omand, the Cabinet Office intelligence and security co-ordinator, on the morning of 7 July, just hours before the second meeting between Dr Kelly and his bosses. It contradicts government claims that normal MoD disciplinary procedures were followed and points to the involvement of high-level intelligence personnel. Mr Scarlett also wrote: "Until we have the full story, we cannot decide how to proceed". Added to the other evidence, this suggests that Downing Street, the MoD and intelligence services would devise a strategy after the 7 July meeting - possibly discussing whether to name Dr Kelly (he was identified on 9 July) and whether to allow him to give evidence to the foreign affairs select committee. Dr Kelly had been warned that any new information that came to light would "almost certainly result in disciplinary action with potentially serious consequences". The inquiry heard that the MoD knew Dr Kelly was "apparently feeling the pressure and not handling it well" - according to an internal memo - yet on the day of his death, he was still being pursued for more details of his contacts with journalists. Martin Howard, the deputy chief of defence intelligence, was the witness who revealed that Dr Kelly was called in for a second grilling as a result of high-level discussions within government. He said that a memo from Sir David to Sir Kevin, the permanent secretary at the MoD, "recorded the Prime Minister's views that, before we had decided on the next steps that should be taken, it would be sensible to go into a bit more detail into the differences between what Dr Kelly had said and what (the BBC reporter) Andrew Gilligan had claimed". Mr Scarlett was more explicit. He wrote to Sir David saying the "finger points strongly" at Dr Kelly as the source of the story by Mr Gilligan. "Kelly needs a proper security-style interview in which all these inconsistencies are thrashed out," he wrote. "I think this is rather urgent." It is not clear if Mr Scarlett knew the second Kelly interview was due to take place just hours later, when he wrote his memo on the morning of 7 July. However, his message was reinforced the following day by Mr Hoon's private secretary, Dominic Wilson. He wrote to Sir Kevin: "What is now needed is a more intensive interview with Kelly." The inquiry heard that Mr Hoon was instrumental in forcing Dr Kelly to undergo the ordeal of appearing before the foreign affairs committee in public, despite Sir Kevin's advice that they should have "some regard for the man himself". Sir Kevin also said: "The man came forward voluntarily. He is not on trial." He recommended that Dr Kelly should just go before the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, which sits in private. But a letter from Mr Hoon's private office to the private office of Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said that "on balance" Mr Hoon had decided that Dr Kelly should appear in public. "Presentationally, it would be difficult to defend a position in which the government had objected to Dr Kelly appearing before a committee of the House which takes evidence in public, in favour of an appointed committee which meets in private," the letter said. It added that No 10 was "content" with the decision.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
