|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
13-09-2003 Scotsman Hutton will be even tougher this time round: Analysis By Gethin Chamberlain Diplomatic correspondent IF THE first month of the Hutton Inquiry was uncomfortable for many of those called to give evidence, the second phase promises to be the stuff of nightmares. Most of the witnesses called in the next couple of weeks will be there because question marks have arisen over the evidence they gave, or failed to give; because other witnesses gave different versions of events; or because new documentary evidence has surfaced which casts doubt on their versions of events. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter whose claims that Alastair Campbell "sexed up" the government's dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and inserted a claim that such weapons could be ready at 45 minutes notice, already knows he will be recalled. Lord Hutton is sure to want to ask him about his attempts to influence the questioning of other witnesses appearing before the Commons foreign affairs committee. Mr Gilligan has also been left exposed by his bosses, who have pulled back from their fulsome support of his reporting. Subsequent evidence has also cast considerable doubt on his assertions about what he was told by Dr David Kelly, the weapons expert whose death triggered the inquiry. It is that change in the previously solid BBC position that is likely to be behind the decision to summon Greg Dyke, the BBC director general, to appear before the committee on Monday. Mr Dyke faces an uncomfortable time in the witness box as he tries to explain why the BBC governors put their weight behind Mr Gilligan's claims despite knowing there were serious concerns among Mr Gilligan's superiors about the accuracy of the story. Also due in the witness box on Monday is Air Marshal Sir Joe French, who was chief of defence intelligence at the time the dossier was compiled. As the deputy chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) - whose chairman John Scarlett claimed ownership of the dossier - he will need to explain whether the committee, or anyone in the government, was aware of the concerns that had been raised. He may also be able to deal with a claim by the former defence intelligence staff manager Dr Brian Jones that the JIC did not meet to sign off the dossier. Of the others pencilled in to appear on Monday, Tony Cragg was the deputy chief of defence intelligence at the time the dossier was being compiled, and he will face questions about the level of dissent among the intelligence experts about the information selected for use. The inquiry has already heard from Mr Jones that he wrote to Mr Cragg on 19 September last year to raise a number of concerns about the dossier, and Lord Hutton will want to know whether those concerns were passed on up the line to Geoff Hoon and if not, why they were ignored. Dr Richard Scott, who works for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and who is known to have had discussions with Dr Kelly about his pay and grading, can expect to be questioned about why it was that Dr Kelly appeared to been overlooked for promotion and salary increases.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
