Hutton Inquiry - day 3

ITV ^ | 13 Aug 2003 | ITV Staff

[ijcr]

The Hutton Inquiry into the death of Government weapons expert Dr David Kelly is hearing its third day of evidence.

Susan Watts, BBC2 Newsnight's science editor, returned to the witness box to continue giving evidence into the death of Government scientist David Kelly.

Susan Watts' evidence

James Dingemans QC, counsel to the inquiry, resumed his questioning of Ms Watts about her dealings with Dr Kelly.

She said the purpose of her conversation with Dr Kelly on May 7 was for background.

"If there were points of interest I felt to be newsworthy, I would return to those points with him and discuss them in more detail."

She told the hearing that over the course of two years up to that conversation she was researching issues concerned with weapons of mass destruction.

She said she used a number of research materials "beyond conversations with Dr Kelly" including various Government documents and scientific papers, and discussions with other former inspectors.

"During that two years my relationship with Dr Kelly also changed.

"We had moved from fairly technical conversations to more gossipy content in those conversations and by that time I was very much able to discern the difference between what I would categorise as gossipy remarks and those based on his expertise and considered opinion."

She said there were "significant differences" between what Dr Kelly told her and what he was reported to have told Andrew Gilligan.

"He didn't say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly didn't say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in Government.

"In fact, he denied specifically that Alastair Campbell was involved in the conversation on May 30. He was very clear to me that the claim was in the original intelligence."

She did not include the claims in her reports, she told the inquiry.

Differences between the two journalists Ms Watts was asked to look at her shorthand notes from her conversation with Dr Kelly on May 7, in which she wrote: "Mistake to put in A. Campbell seeing something in there."

She was asked how she would characterise the comment made by Dr Kelly.

She replied: "Gossipy, off-the-cuff, almost gratuitous remark."

Following her conversation with Dr Kelly, Ms Watts discussed whether to broadcast with the editor of Newsnight, George Entwistle.

She said she believed that Dr Kelly could have been the source used by Mr Gilligan.

Ms Watts said: "I did suspect that he (Dr Kelly) had been a source for the Today programme and I said as much to the editor of Newsnight, George Entwistle."

She told the inquiry that she had a "number of theories" as to why there had been no problems raised about her broadcast.

"Some were based on things that I knew - that my report differed significantly in some detail - but I had other speculative explanations."

She said she decided the best possible explanation was that there were "significant differences".

She described how she had considered other explanations, including one that the "Government simply had not noticed my reports".

But she said she had decided that was unlikely and "I discounted that one".

She said she had also thought another possible explanation was that the Government might have wanted to maintain Newsnight as a channel for its views, "and decided not to enter into a row with Newsnight".

But she said that once again she had discounted that speculative explanation.

Newsnight had produced a number of items which were "uncomfortable for the Government".

Mr Dingemans put to her that the three possible theories she had just mentioned were: first, the difference in wording between her reports and Mr Gilligan's, the second, that the Government may have missed the report and third, that the "Government wanted to keep Newsnight sweet".

Pressure on Ms Watts

Ms Watts went on to say she felt "under considerable pressure" to reveal to BBC bosses the source of her story on Newsnight.

She felt that executives were trying to corroborate the story by Mr Gilligan in a way that was both "misguided and false".

She said that after meeting BBC head of news Richard Sambrook she had sought independent legal advice.

"Firstly, that I felt under some considerable pressure to reveal the identity of my source." Asked by whom, she said by the BBC.

She added: "I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate the Andrew Gilligan allegations and not for any proper news purpose."

She said her Newsnight reports "spoke for themselves".

Asked by Mr Dingemans whether she thought her story corroborated that of Mr Gilligan, she answered: "No. There were very significant differences between his report and my report.

"Namely, that I did not include the name of Alastair Campbell. And that I did not refer to my source as being a member of the intelligence services."

Gavin Hewitt's evidence

BBC journalist Gavin Hewitt was the next witness to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Speaking about his conversation with Dr Kelly on the day of the Today report, Mr Hewitt said: "He gave me the impression that life in that final week (before the publication of the dossier) was very frenetic with material being put in and material being taken out.

"But he didn't say this in a way that was against the Government."

Mr Hewitt said he did not ask Dr Kelly if the 45-minute claim was inserted in the final week or if the Government had known it was wrong - information that was included in the Gilligan report.

He said he was trying to establish Dr Kelly's view of the dossier as an expert in that field.

He was asked if it crossed his mind that he might be talking to the same source as the one for Mr Gilligan's piece. He replied: "Never."

Mr Hewitt said he had not seen the live broadcast of Dr Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

He said it was afterwards that he heard his name had been mentioned during the committee hearing.

The journalist told the inquiry that Dr Kelly was "incorrect" when he had said that he did not think he had a conversation with Mr Hewitt.

He said: "I cannot begin to think why he got that wrong. He may have had a lot of interviews within that period."

Mr Hewitt said that after he had talked to Dr Kelly he had wanted to try to corroborate what the scientist had said.

He said: "I decided I would only use on the news that night the more broad assertion he had made about the language in the dossier.

"I did not feel I had made any real progress in the area of the 45-minute claim."

He said he limited his broadcast to the language used in the dossier.

He said he had interviewed BBC governor and former diplomat Dame Pauline Neville-Jones.

"I said to her: 'At the time that the September dossier was published, did you hear anything from your contact in the intelligence community, any expressions of concern or unease?'"

Mr Hewitt said he had "pushed her" and that she told him "yes, I did hear some mutterings, some murmurings".

Richard Sambrook's evidence

Richard Sambrook, director of BBC News, said he understood that anonymous sources were "necessary in some areas of journalism".

The BBC's guidelines for its producers covered the issue of sources, he said, although he added that there were no formal, industry-wide guidelines dictating exact meanings for phrases such as "attributable", "non-attributable" or "off the record".

He agreed that the latter two terms "sometimes got muddled".

Mr Dingemans: "You have a history of complaints, I think, from Alastair Campbell about BBC reporting?"

Mr Sambrook: "Yes."

Mr Dingemans highlighted a letter on March 19 about BBC coverage of a Commons vote on war in Iraq.

Mr Sambrook said the letter reflected the effects the BBC's style of reporting had on government in times of war, adding that public opinion was very low at that time.

Another letter from Alastair Campbell was shown asking for guidance on the BBC's attitude towards taking television material from Iraqi broadcasters, followed by another complaint, this time about an Andrew Gilligan report from Iraq.

Mr Sambrook said: "We of course take any letter from Downing Street seriously but we have to look very carefully at exactly what is being complained about and compare it to what we were broadcasting."

The hearing was told that Mr Campbell complained about another Gilligan report from Baghdad, for News 24, which contained the words "more rubbish from Centcom".

Mr Sambrook said he agreed that phrase was unacceptable and spoke to Mr Gilligan about it, saying: "Occasionally he needed to be more careful - even under the circumstances which he was reporting from Baghdad, which were of considerable duress - of his use of language."

A letter from Downing Street complaining about the BBC's coverage from Afghanistan was headlined "Catalogue of Lies", the inquiry was told.

Mr Sambrook said he had met Mr Campbell twice but added: "The only communication I ever had with Alastair Campbell was these kind of letters and faxes."

Mr Dingemans asked Mr Sambrook whether Mr Campbell's complaint was taken seriously by him. Mr Sambrook said that it had been.

The inquiry heard about an e-mail from Today programme editor Kevin Marsh to the head of BBC Radio News Stephen Mitchell, in which he said he had re-read Campbell's point and said: "I am more convinced than I was before that he is on the run or gone bonkers or worse."

Mr Sambrook said he had been surprised at the escalation of the row which came about when Mr Campbell appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee.

"We certainly had not anticipated anything on this scale. He had broadened this out to an attack on all the BBC's general editorial values."

He added that the BBC, and in particular the Today programme, had a relationship with Government ministries so that if particular policy was to be criticised on air, the relevant minister would be invited to respond and defend the Government's position.

Reliability of Andrew Gilligan's reporting

Mr Dingemans said to Mr Sambrook: "There's nothing, is there, when you look at his (Mr Gilligan's) note from the meeting with Dr Kelly which suggests that the source, Dr Kelly, had ever said that?"

Mr Sambrook agreed there was not but added: "But it was an accurate reflection or interpretation of part of his conversation with Dr Kelly."

Mr Sambrook was asked if reporters went back to their sources to double-check that their interpretation of conversations was correct.

He said: "It's sometimes done but I wouldn't say it's the norm."

He said programme editors checked with the reporters about the nature of their sources and the basis of their reports, adding that Mr Gilligan's editor had done so in this case.

[ijcr]

The BBC is being nailed.