Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Dr David Kelly/Hutton Inquiry.
Dr David Kelly/Hutton Inquiry
Asked if Lord Hutton had signalled in his statement this morning that his remit could be a lot wider than originally envisaged, the PMOS said that as Lord Hutton himself had underlined, his terms of reference were "urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly". No doubt he would want to consider all the material relevant to that. Ultimately, however, it was up to him to decide how his inquiry should be conducted. Asked if Lord Hutton would steer clear of investigating the Government’s policy on Iraq because both the FAC and ISC were already examining the issue, the PMOS said that we had asked Lord Hutton to do a job and people should let him get on and do it. He had set out his terms of reference this morning. It was therefore pointless speculating about how the inquiry might be carried out. Pressed as to whether Lord Hutton would be able to examine the wider policy sphere if he wished to do so, the PMOS said that he had no argument with what Lord Hutton had said in his statement this morning. Asked if the Government would stand in Lord Hutton’s way if he made an application to acquire extra powers to carry out a wider investigation, the PMOS said the important point was that we had agreed he would be given access to whatever papers he needed and whichever people he wanted to talk to. As he understood it, the BBC had made a similar commitment. Consequently, he thought it unlikely that such a situation would arise.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister would give evidence to Lord Hutton in public or in private, the PMOS cautioned journalists against getting too far ahead of themselves. It was up to Lord Hutton to decide to whom he wanted to speak, when and how. Asked if the Prime Minister had any objection in principle against giving evidence, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had made his position very clear yesterday. Asked if the Prime Minister would be making any further comment about the matter today, the PMOS said it was unlikely in view of the fact that an inquiry had now been set up and would begin its work shortly.
Questioned about the timescale for the inquiry in the light of the fact that legal representation would extend it significantly, the PMOS said it was important to recognise that this was not a 1921 inquiry which, according to legal experts, tended to take considerably longer. Lord Hutton himself had said this morning that he would "consider the extent to which interested parties and bodies should be represented by counsel or solicitors". Put to him that those called to give evidence were likely to want to have separate legal representation, the PMOS said that it was up to Lord Hutton to decide how to conduct his inquiry. We had given him a job to do. People should let him get on and do it.
Asked if the Prime Minister had been consulted about the MoD’s statement before its release last week, the PMOS reminded journalists that, as we had freely acknowledged at the time, Downing Street had been consulted. That said, it was important to be clear that MoD procedures had been followed. Obviously it was only right that the Department should have been the one to make a decision about the matter. Asked about the disciplinary rules to which Dr Kelly might have been subjected, the PMOS said that, contrary to stories over the weekend which were completely wrong, the MoD had made it clear that Dr Kelly had been told that there was no threat to his pension. They had also underlined that the most Dr Kelly would have faced would have been a verbal reprimand and a reminder of the rules about unauthorised meetings with journalists.
Asked why the MoD had felt it necessary to identify Dr Kelly, the PMOS said that these were matters which Lord Hutton would no doubt want to examine and reach his own judgement about. That said, it was important for people to be fully aware of the sequence of events. Dr Kelly had come forward to identify himself voluntarily. Subsequently, the MoD had decided that it was possible Dr Kelly might be Andrew Gilligan’s source and that it would therefore be improper not to make it known that an official had come forward - hence the MoD’s statement. In its response to the statement, the BBC had claimed that their source did not work in the MoD. At that point, all we had done was to set out the fact that the person was not a senior intelligence officer but a technical expert. Asked if Dr Kelly had, at any point, been given an assurance that his name would not become public, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the MoD had warned him that it was likely his identity would be discovered because of the relatively few number of people working in his field. Put to him that the MoD’s apparent readiness to confirm Dr Kelly’s name was problematic, the PMOS said that this was an issue which Lord Hutton would no doubt want to consider. That said, the key point in all this was the fact that relatively few people worked in Dr Kelly’s area. There had therefore been a strong likelihood that suspicion would fall unfairly onto others. Asked who had made the decision to confirm Dr Kelly’s name, the PMOS said that the matter had been handled in accordance with MoD procedures and had been overseen by those at the top of the MoD in view of the fact that it been the lead Department. Asked if the decision would have had to be approved at Ministerial level, the PMOS said that it would have been approved in accordance with MoD procedures. The Department itself had already made its position clear. Pressed about Geoff Hoon’s role, the PMOS referred journalists to the MoD for an explanation of its procedures. He had no intention of pre-judging Lord Hutton’s inquiry.
Put to him that the Government had deliberately narrowed down the list of possibilities because it had wanted to strengthen its case against the BBC by underlining the fact that Dr Kelly was not involved in intelligence, the PMOS said that given the BBC, particularly the governors, had continued to repeat their view that their source was intelligence-based, we believed we had been perfectly in the right to say that the person concerned was not. Asked if he was agreeing that the Government had made it easy to identify Dr Kelly in order to strengthen its case against the BBC rather than take into account the interests of Dr Kelly, the PMOS repeated that he had no intention of pre-empting Lord Hutton’s inquiry. He was simply setting out the factual position.
Put to him that Mr Gilligan had not referred to an intelligence official in his original report but had pointed to someone who had played a co-ordinating role in the production of the September dossier, the PMOS said that it was up to the BBC to check its records. However, he would point out that Dr Kelly had not been involved in co-ordinating the dossier either. He added that Civil Servants had the right to ask for the record to be set straight if a false story was broadcast. That applied to all people in public life, including the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications and Strategy, Alastair Campbell.
Asked if it was true to say that the Government had a poor opinion of Andrew Gilligan’s journalistic abilities prior to this controversy, the PMOS said that it was not his job to comment on Mr Gilligan’s journalism. It was for others to do so.
Asked to dispel a conspiracy theory currently doing the rounds which claimed that Dr Kelly had been assassinated, the PMOS said he could categorically deny the suggestion.
delicious
digg
facebook
