Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
MR ANDREW
GILLIGAN AND
MR MARK
DAMAZER
19 JUNE 2003
Q440 Mr Maples: We know now that
quite a large part of this came from this PhD thesis but Dr Rangwala
points out a couple of changes. Whereas the author of that thesis
had said that a particular Iraqi security organisation had as
part of its role to "monitor foreign embassies in Iraq",
that became in the "dodgy dossier", "spying on
foreign embassies in Iraq." On the same page Ibrahim al-Marashi
had written that Mukhabarat had a role in "aiding opposition
groups in hostile regimes" but in the dodgy dossier that
becomes "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes".
Are these the sort of things that people were drawing to your
attention as their complaints, their concerns?
Mr Gilligan: Yes, among others.
That was also one of the things which led me to invest credibility
in my source for the 45-minute claim, because it seemed to fit
with the pattern of behaviour by Downing Street that had already
been established in the "dodgy dossier".
Q441 Mr Maples: So the person who
gave you the 45-minute story had been involved in these other
things and talked to you about those.
Mr Gilligan: No. I invested great
credibility in my 45-minute source for a number of reasons but
one of the reasons was that Downing Street had already been shown
to have embellished, to have "sexed up", if you like,
material.
Q442 Mr Maples: Over the "dodgy
dossier".
Mr Gilligan: In the "dodgy
dossier".
Mr Maples: Thank you very much.
Q443 Chairman: You have said that
the agencies were laying down ultimata to the Government. What
did you mean by that?
Mr Gilligan: Would you remind
me of the context again.
Q444 Chairman: It was a phrase which
I wrote down as you were saying it, that the agencies were "laying
down ultimata".
Mr Gilligan: Yes, that is right.
That was something that was reported, as I mentioned, by the Independent
and the Guardian in the week after the 45-minute story
broke. I cannot remember the exact words of the reporting but
it was in terms of: the agencies have asked the Government to
make a clearer distinction between material derived from intelligence
and material derived from Downing Street or government with regard
to your sub-editing in any future dossiers. That was it.
Q445 Chairman: That is in respect
of the January dossier rather than—
Mr Gilligan: It is in respect
of all future dossiers.
Q446 Chairman: But it arose after
the publication of the January dossier.
Mr Gilligan: The story emerged
after the row over the September dossier, the 45-minute story.
You will remember that the Prime Minister answered some of the
criticisms expressed at the time by promising, I think, a third
dossier, and I think this was in relation to that promised future
dossier.
Q447 Chairman: Was this suggested
to you as well by your sources?
Mr Gilligan: As I say, an intelligence
source contacted me and said, "The story in The Independent
is spot on."
Q448 Chairman: Right. Were these
ultimata meant to be in written form?
Mr Gilligan: I do not know.
Q449 Sir John Stanley: Mr Gilligan,
could I go back to what you describe as the 45-minute story and
to what you said on the Today programme on May 29. We are
referring here not to the so-called "dodgy dossier"
but to the assessment of September 2002. You said this: "I
have spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation
of the dossier and he told me that until the week before it was
published the draft dossier produced by the intelligence services
adds little to what was already publicly known." He said,
"It was transformed the week before it was published to make
it sexier. The classic example was the statement that WMD were
ready for use in 45 minutes. That information was not in the original
draft. It was included in the dossier against their wishes because
it wasn't reliable." Mr Gilligan, we have specifically put
that issue to the Foreign Secretary and we have received the Foreign
Secretary's response. The question we put to the Foreign Secretary
was this: "Was the wording of the 45-minutes claim given
on page 19 of the document Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
exactly the same as it was in the intelligence assessments applied
to the Government? If not, was it accompanied in the intelligence
assessment by qualifications not included in the public document?"
The answer we have received from the Foreign Secretary is this:
"The same report was reflected in almost identical terms
in the JIC's classified work. There were no further caveats used."
The question I put to you is this: against what has been clearly
stated now by the Foreign Secretary, are you saying that the Foreign
Secretary is lying to this Committee? Or will you now acknowledge
that your source was incorrect in saying that the 45-minutes claim
was not based on a genuine assessment of the JIC, fully approved
through the JIC process?
Mr Gilligan: I note the words
"almost identical" in the Foreign Secretary's response.
I would simply say that it is not my business to say whether the
Foreign Secretary is lying or not. All I would say is that I invested
strong credibility in my source, who is a person of impeccable
standing on this issue, and whose complaints have been reflected
in something like seven or eight newspapers and other media outlets,
including other BBC outlets, since my original story and his complaints
have also been reflected by named, on the record, former intelligence
officers from Australia, from the United States, and also, to
some extent, by other Members of the House.
Q450 Sir John Stanley: You are making,
Mr Gilligan, a very, very serious allegation against the integrity
of the JIC. The entire—
Mr Gilligan: I am not making any
allegations.
Q451 Sir John Stanley: I am sorry,
may I just go on. You are making, in my view, a very serious allegation
against the integrity of the JIC, all the members of the JIC and,
most particularly, against the integrity of the JIC Chairman.
You are saying that the JIC Committee and its Chairman, under
pressure, which you are implying is political pressure from, presumably,
10 Downing Street, "sexed up" their original assessment
at the last moment and introduced material which according to
your source was unreliable. You are effectively saying that the
whole of the JIC system, including the Chairman, connived in a
political embellishing of a JIC assessment for political purposes.
I cannot think of anything more damaging by way of an accusation
to make against the professional integrity of those who serve
on the JIC.
Mr Gilligan: I would repeat, as
I have said throughout, I am not making any allegations. My source
made the allegations. We were reporting the charge of my source,
who is a figure sufficiently senior and credible to be worth reporting.
Q452 Sir John Stanley: I accept you
are reporting your source, but you and your organisation chose
to give this matter publicity in this country and around the world
to the effect that the JIC system, including the Chairman, was
effectively a party to including unreliable intelligence assessments
material in a document going round under the JIC's imprimatur.
I put it to you that is a very, very serious allegation to give
the sort of publicity which you have given.
Mr Gilligan: As I have said, the
JIC did not enter into my report. I reported the source as saying
there was unhappiness within the intelligence services, disquiet
within the intelligence services. The JIC and the intelligence
services are not the same thing. The JIC is a Committee of the
Cabinet Office and the intelligence services are represented on
it, but they are not the same thing.
Q453 Sir John Stanley: Can you say
whether your source suggested that any other pieces of the text
that were put in at the last minute, presumably following its
approval to the JIC system, other than the references to 45 minutes,
were inserted at the last minute before the document was made
public?
Mr Gilligan: He was quite cutting
about the claim that uranium had been sought from Africa.
Q454 Sir John Stanley: Are you suggesting,
apart from being quite cutting, that that was a last minute addition
as well?
Mr Gilligan: I am not sure. No,
I do not think I am because I do not think he quite said that.
He was of the opinion, however, that that was unreliable information.
Q455 Sir John Stanley: In terms of
your evidence to this Committee, the only piece of evidence which
you are specifying was allegedly made at the last minute subject
to a political requirement to "sex it up", to use your
phrase, is the 45 minute claim?
Mr Gilligan: That was the only
specific piece of evidence that my source discussed, yes.
Sir John Stanley: Thank you.
Q456 Mr Olner: So the rest of the
evidence that was in the dossier was reliable? By implication,
if your source said he was not happy about the 45 minute thing
then he was happy with the rest of it.
Mr Gilligan: The fact that my
source was not specifically unhappy with other elements of the
dossier does not necessarily mean that other elements of the dossier
were reliable. Of course it might mean that, but I do not think
anything can be drawn from it either way.
Q457 Mr Olner: Who from Number Ten
asked for the dossier to be changed?
Mr Gilligan: I asked this. The
source's claim was that the dossier had been transformed in the
week before it was published and I asked, "So how did this
transformation happen?", and the answer was a single word,
which was "Campbell". I asked, "What do you mean,
Campbell made it up?", and he answered, "No. It was
real information"—this is the 45 minute claim—"but
it was included in the dossier against our wishes because it was
not reliable. It was a single source and it was not reliable."
He also said that Downing Street officials, he did not name anybody
else, had asked repeatedly if there was anything else that could
be included on seeing the original draft of the dossier which
was considered dull.
Q458 Mr Olner: After having heard
evidence on this Committee yesterday, I think the 45 minute thing
is irrelevant in a way because if an armament is found it can
be used immediately.
Mr Gilligan: Irrelevant to what?
Chairman: Let us get onto the subject.
Q459 Mr Olner: I thought it was a
relevant question to ask.
Mr Gilligan: The 45 minute claim
is important because it went to the heart of the Government's
case that there was an immediate threat from Saddam, it was not
a mere detail and it was one of the most headline grabbing parts
of the dossier. The 45 minute claim was far from irrelevant to
the case the Government made against Iraq.
| 
