The Hutton Inquiry
After three weeks of hearings and testimony from 80 witnesses and several hundredweight of resultant
paper, Lord Hutton retired to consider his report on the David Kelly affair. This was the worst political
crisis to hit the government since 1997 and maybe the worst ever for the BBC. This introduction discusses
the issues raised and the involvement of some of the key players.
Gilligan’s Report
The event which initiated this inquiry occurred early on 29th May 2003 when Andrew Gilligan,
the Defence correspondent of the BBC’s Today programme, broadcast a report in which he claimed a
‘senior official in charge of drawing up the (September 2002) dossier’ on Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMDs) in Iraq had told him two things:
1. That the dossier drawn up by Downing St (but based on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee
(JIC)) which had been used to justify the attack on Iraq, had been deliberately ‘sexed up’ by Downing
Street a week before publication date to make it more persuasive to those opposed the threatened war
against Iraq.
2. The name ‘Campbell’ as the person responsible for the changes. Three days later in a Mail on Sunday
article Gilligan maintained it was Alasdair Campbell who had inserted the claim that Saddam could utilise
his WMDs within 45 minutes.
Cabinet minister John Reid muddied the water when he suggested the source was a few ‘rogue elements’ in
the intelligence service- few took this practiced government apologist seriously. Gilligan had already
earned the ire of the government by sending a series of reports from Iraq which took a markedly sceptical
line (e.g. that the Iraqis felt more unsafe at the end of the war than they had under Saddam).
Gilligan’s virtual claim that Campbell had altered intelligence to suit political ends infuriated the ex tabloid
journalist; he demanded an apology; the BBC refused and stood by its report. Campbell appeared before the
Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) protesting ‘it is a lie, it was a lie’. The FAC, in fact, cleared the
government of ‘sexing up’ the dossier but voted, unconvincingly, on party lines with the chairman casting
the deciding vote. Few believed the issue had been satisfactorily resolved.
The Mole
The hunt was on to find the source who had spoken to Gilligan and within the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
a scientific adviser, Dr David Kelly, came forward to his superiors to suggest he might be the man: he had
made an unauthorised meeting with the BBC reporter but he asserted he had not said the things claimed.
The BBC initially denied Kelly was the source and so the government felt it would greatly help its case if
the name came out and showed Kelly was not an intelligence source and could not have known in detail
about the dossier.
On 9th July Sir Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Secretary to the MOD, met Defence minister Geoff Hoon and it
was agreed that, whilst Kelly’s name would not be offered, if a journalist came up with the right name it
would be confirmed. However No.10 and MOD also dropped heavy hints as to who Kelly was and what he
did. Pam Teare, MOD press officer, eventually confirmed Kelly’s identity. He was then called to give
evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. One member demeaningly accused him of being a ‘fall guy’
or mere ‘chaff’. On 17th July Kelly went for a walk near his home, took some pills, slashed his wrists and,
it appeared, bled to death.
The Inquiry is set up
On an airplane above Japan when he heard the news, Tony Blair, (in retrospect perhaps precipitately),
immediately announced an inquiry into Kelly’s death under Lord Justice Hutton, a tough Northern Ireland
judge: ‘urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.’
Intelligence and Security Committee report 11th September
The report by the secretive Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) did not help the government much.
Intelligence chiefs, it transpired, had warned Blair on the eve of war that invading Iraq would increase the
danger of terrorist attacks rather than diminish them e.g. would be more likely to assist Weapons of Mass
Destruction getting into hands of Al Quaida. However it cleared the government of altering the dossier
and misleading parliament. Blair, as Prime Minister, made it known that he judged it best to eradicate the
source of the WMDs on the grounds that they might eventually end up in terrorist hands. ISC felt the
dossier was misleading in that it spoke of ‘continuing’ production of WMDs whereas the Joint Intelligence
Committee did not know of this or of any deployments. Saddam, moreover, was not considered a ‘current
or imminent threat to Britain’. And the only WMDs available were short-range ‘battlefield’ ones and not
for extended or ‘strategic’ delivery. This should have been explained in the dossier said ISC. Moreover,
the 45 minute claim-mentioned four times in the dossier- was over emphasised and did not explain that this
referred only to the battlefield weapons.
The issues arising focused on:

Who was responsible for Kelly’s death?
-BBC?
-MOD?
-FAC?
-Downing St?
-The ‘dark actors’ he referred to in an email before he died?
-The media?

Leaking of the name.... was it justified? Was it carried out properly? (Martin Howard, Deputy
Chief of Defence Intelligence, denied Kelly had been treated ‘shabbily’ by MOD in evidence to
Hutton.)

Origins of the war: Some critics claimed Hutton was a convenient diversion from the real issue:
why did we go to war in the first place? Certainly Hutton’s evidence touched on the issue, and
some called for a full judicial inquiry as after the Falklands War when Lord Franks led such an
investigation.
The Accused: Dramatis Personae

Blair..... letting Campbell get out of control in row with BBC?

Campbell..... sexing up dossier on WMD and witch-hunting the mole?

Kelly....... leaking to Gilligan and then denying it to FAC?

Gilligan..... exaggerating Kelly’s evidence in his report?

Gavyn Davies- BBC Chairman…. defending poor reporting by Gilligan?

Hoon...... allowing Kelly’s name to be leaked?

Tebbit....... ditto.
Tony Blair
Seems to have escaped reasonably untainted by the evidence given. He seemed to be a voice of moderation
regarding Campbell and concern regarding Kelly, although he was clearly keen to toughen up the dossier
and was party to discussions regarding Kelly when they virtually dominated government business for
several days. His popularity plunged as a result of the hearings (61% said they were unhappy with Blair’s
performance in a Guardian poll in Late September).
Alastair Campbell
Was initially incensed regarding Gilligan’s claims regarding 45 minute time scale and certainly pursued it
with unusual vigour, on one occasion turning up uninvited at the News at Seven Channel 4 studios to speak
to Jon Snow. The ISC acquitted him of ‘sexing up’ the dossier but left question marks regarding various
emphases elsewhere. His diary entries proved explosive and seemed, at the time, to have done for Geoff
Hoon. Cynics suggest he submitted the entries to fuel the bidding war for his diaries when they are
published.
Those of an even more cynical frame of mind raise their eyebrows at Campbell’s indignation at being
accused of spin. After all, the February 2003 dossier was shown to be plagiarized from a thesis available on
the Internet.
Dr. David Kelly
Aged 59, was born in Wales and educated at Oxford in microbiology. In 1984 he moved to Porton Down
where chemical and biological weapons are studied and developed. From there he became a defence
adviser to the Foreign Office and the MOD. He was not in intelligence but was familiar with much of it as
it related to his specialist area. He debriefed defectors from USSR and later from Iraq. He visited Iraq 37
times and, in an article in the Observer, written before his death, he foresaw military means would be
needed to disarm Saddam-so he was not opposed to the war. He felt the dossier was basically correct but
had worries, it seems, that the politicians were misusing the intelligence contained therein. Kelly thought
his anonymity would be protected but it was not. After he was revealed as the mole he was under intense
pressure but, it has to be said, he was not unused to such pressure from his visits to Iraq; nor was he a
depressive by all accounts. He had, moreover, a strong supportive home life as well as a personal faithBahai- which preaches peace and reconciliation. His death will probably always remain a mystery.
Andrew Gilligan
It seemed that his basic claim that the government strengthened the wording of the dossier was been borne
out but certain specific claims were ruled out by the ISC. Suspicions were fuelled that he ‘overegged’ the
evidence given by Kelly in order to deliver a more dramatic report. Certainly the wording of his reports
have been criticised, he had acknowledged some failings and been criticised by his superiors; he accepted
that the government did not add the 45 minute claim and also that he made up the phrase ‘sexed up’.
In his summing up for the BBC Andrew Caldecott admitted Gilligan’s reporting had been flawed.
BBC
Maybe editorial control of the Today programme was not as firm as it should have been and maybe
Gilligan was given too free a rein. Certainly Gilligan used language carelessly in his reports and Kelly was
not ‘an intelligence source’ as the corporation claimed. However, Kelly was a very senior man and was
close to the compiling of the dossier. Certainly if anyone as senior as him says what he is alleged to have
said, then there is a story there that any journalist would wish to report. Maybe, though, the BBC was too
quick to stand by Gilligan and failed to investigate the matter properly. It has to be remembered also that
two other journalists interviewed Kelly and received similar stories to Gilligan
Geoff Hoon
He was probably the most vulnerable person politically on the basis of the evidence given. In July, and later
to the Inquiry, he denied leaking the name personally or having anything to do with a conspiracy to do so.
However, Campbell’s personal diary was reported with devastating effect: 4th July - Hoon wanted to
‘throw the book at him’; and agreed that Campbell’s exposure of Kelly would ‘f**k Gilligan’; 6th July Hoon and Campbell wanted to expose Kelly; Hoon ‘almost as steamed up as I was’. The aim of both men,
it appears, was to get Kelly to say Gilligan had misrepresented him. The ISC report said he had been
‘unhelpful and potentially misleading’ as a witness and had not told them about the dissent within MOD
regarding elements within the dossier.
Kevin Tebbit (Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence)
It seems that his was a voice of caution which reminded decision makers that Kelly was not guilty of
anything and had come forward voluntarily. However, it seems he was party to the strategy for making
Kelly’s name public.
John Scarlett (chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee)
Cut a curious figure as the ‘spook unmasked’ and with a somewhat imperious manner; was criticised for
appearing to be too receptive to Campbell’s suggestions that the dossier’s wording be strengthened.
Campbell referred to him as ‘a mate’, suggesting they were in some way complicit. Indeed, it seems
Downing Street actually toned down some of the lurid journalese the JIC initially came up with
(was JIC too eager to play the political game?).
What would Hutton Say?
In anticipation of the report it seemed reasonable to make a few educated guesses at to what it might say:

Much of the responsibility for his death must lie with Dr. Kelly himself. He was not close to the
writing of the dossier but clearly essayed some opinions about its compilation. Quite possibly
Kelly exaggerated his knowledge of the process and indulged in some speculation. Amplified
and hyped by Gilligan this sent the government ballistic with rage. Once Kelly realised it was his
briefing to AG which was behind the furore he couldn’t take the heat and chose to end things
himself.

Although Gilligan’s specific allegations seem to be false the general thrust of what he said seemed
correct: the dossier was strengthened and Campbell & Blair have to take a fair bit of
responsibility. However, Blair had been informed about Iraq WMDs right from 1997 and it was
the secret services who provided that intelligence even at that date. Once asked to produce the
goods in public it seems the spooks could not find anything really scary- only plans to re-arm
rather than actual pointy headed weapons aimed at enemies.

The dossier was a document for those who were already convinced war was necessary.
The government did not exactly do what they have been accused of and, as The Economist
suggests, ‘people who are accused of something they have just stopped short of are much angrier
than if the thought had never crossed their minds in the first place.’ 23/8/03.

Blair was involved in the hand to hand fight with the BBC and the decision to let Kelly’s name
become public- indeed he felt he’d be accused of a cover up if he did not.

It seems the distinction between civil servants and advisers had become badly blurred and both
were engaged in this highly political conflict. Almost certainly, it seemed, Hutton would result in
calls for a code of conduct to keep the two types of aide separate from each other.
Key Issues Summarised
a) Whether the government had embellished the draft dossier to strengthen the case for war.
b) Whether the government had deliberately leaked the name of Dr. Kelly to the press, thus placing him
under such pressure that he took his own life.
c) From the evidence it appeared to many that Campbell had been very keen to ‘win’ his fight with the
BBC.
d) Both Campbell and Hoon had been keen to make Kelly’s name public.
e) Some key changes had been made to the dossier at the behest of Campbell and other aides; and that Blair
had been involved in the naming of the scientist.
The Findings
On 30th January 2004 Lord Hutton’s report was published. The Opposition, led by Michael Howard,
had anticipated Blair would be criticised for authorising the leaking of Kelly’s name and had virtually
accused Blair of this in the preceding days. However, Hutton astounded the political world by clearing the
government almost completely and accusing the BBC of bad reporting and much else besides. Blair made
mincemeat of Howard in the debate on the report and Campbell later made a triumphal statement. Cries of
‘whitewash’ featured in the press the next day but the BBC had to pay through the resignations of its
chairman, Director General Greg Dyke, and Gilligan himself. The world of journalism was thrown into
turmoil and Blair apparently had been vindicated, but opinion polls revealed that people at large were
unconvinced by the clearing of the establishment by a senior establishment figure.
Bill Jones 20/5/04