Examination of Witness (Questions 140-159)
15 JULY 2003
DR DAVID
KELLY
Q140 Richard Ottaway: Is it possible
that that was not the case?
Dr Kelly: It is possible it was
not the case, it is possible that there were weapons. Whether
they were weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes is
a separate issue.
Chairman: I think we are getting close
to being outside the terms of reference.
Q141 Richard Ottaway: I am talking
about the 45 minutes which was the central part of Mr Gilligan's
report. My final question is what sort of threat do you feel Iraq
posed to the rest of the world in September 2002?
Dr Kelly: I think I would quote
the dossier, that it was a serious and a current threat.
Q142 Richard Ottaway: You are on
public record as saying as far as anthrax was concerned you thought
that Russia had a bigger capacity than Iraq.
Dr Kelly: If you are quoting me
now, think of where the quote is coming from. I think we are talking
of a separate issue.
Q143 Richard Ottaway: I am talking
about Canadian television on 23 October 2002.
Dr Kelly: I cannot recall the
interview. Essentially, yes, in terms of the Russian biological
weapons programme and the Iraqi biological weapons programme there
is no doubt as to which was the larger.
Q144 Richard Ottaway: The Russians?
Dr Kelly: The Russians.
Q145 Richard Ottaway: Do you think
that Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world?
Dr Kelly: I think it was a threat
to its neighbours and to the interests of the UK.
Richard Ottaway: Thank you very much.
Q146 Sir John Stanley: Dr Kelly,
when did you read the entire transcript of this Committee's evidence
session with Mr Gilligan?
Dr Kelly: The Thursday after he
provided the information.
Q147 Sir John Stanley: When you read
it, did you recognise yourself in the description he gave of the
nature, the experience, the working position of the single source
for the 45 minute claim?
Dr Kelly: No, because I am not
part of British Intelligence and I was not someone who was involved
in drafting the dossier or compiling the dossier, I cannot remember
the exact phrase he used.
Q148 Sir John Stanley: When you read
the transcript did you recognise the conversation that Mr Gilligan
described between himself and his sole source for the 45 minute
claim as being one that was held with you?
Dr Kelly: No.
Q149 Sir John Stanley: When he came
before the Committee Mr Gilligan told us about the length of time
that he had known this particular source. If I heard you in the
rather bad acoustics a little time ago, I think you said to one
of my colleagues that you first met Mr Gilligan in September of
last year. Did I hear that correctly?
Dr Kelly: You heard it correctly.
When I made my statement to the Ministry of Defence what I said
was I cannot exclude the possibility that I have met him at a
meeting at Chatham House or IISS before then. That was the first
time I can remember holding a long conversation with him.
Q150 Sir John Stanley: You will,
of course, be aware that Mr Gilligan said to this Committee in
relation to this source that: "I have known this man for
some time" and he also said in response to a question from
the Chairman: "It was something like a year since I had last
seen him face-to-face when we met". Would you agree that
that, again, bears absolutely no relationship to what you have
just described as your contact with Mr Gilligan?
Dr Kelly: Before the May meeting
the previous meeting had been in February, two months earlier.
Q151 Sir John Stanley: If you met
him for the first time last September that is completely removed
from something like "I have known this man for some time
. . . It was something like a year since I had last seen him face-to-face
. . ." Having read the transcript, Dr Kelly, you have already
confirmed to me and to other colleagues on this Committee that
the description Mr Gilligan gave of the person in terms of position
and experience of his source for the 45 minute claim bore no relationship
to yourself?
Dr Kelly: It does not match up.
Q152 Sir John Stanley: You have already
said to this Committee that Mr Gilligan's account of the conversation
which he had with the single source on the 45 minute claim bears
no relationship to the conversation which you yourself had with
him. Thirdly, you have just confirmed to me that the history of
your relatively short relationship with Mr Gilligan bears no relationship
to what Mr Gilligan said was the last time he had met his source
and the length of time he had known him.
Dr Kelly: Yes.
Q153 Sir John Stanley: So when you
read that in the transcript, I find it difficult to understand
why it was not absolutely clear to you that whatever conversation
you had with Mr Gilligan there is absolutely no way you were the
source that he was referring to when he came before this Committee
as far as the 45 minute claim is concerned.
Dr Kelly: The difficulty I have
is that there are other elements of it which do match the things
that I say, and I have referred to that: the issue of the 30 per
cent probability of Iraq possessing chemical weapons. That is
the sort of statement that I do make and may well have made to
him, and that is when I became concerned that I may, in fact,
be part and parcel of the story.
Q154 Sir John Stanley: Of course,
references to those particular points may have come in other public
statements that Mr Gilligan has made and on which he might reasonably
have drawn from the separate conversation he had with you.
Dr Kelly: True.
Q155 Sir John Stanley: Who made the
proposition to you, Dr Kelly, that you should be treated absolutely
uniquely, in a way which I do not believe any civil servant has
ever been treated before, in being made a public figure before
being served up to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Dr Kelly: I cannot answer that
question. I do not know who made that decision. I think that is
a question you have to ask the Ministry of Defence.
Q156 Sir John Stanley: So you did
not make it yourself?
Dr Kelly: Certainly not.
Q157 Sir John Stanley: We have to
assume therefore that your ministers then are responsible for
treating you uniquely as a civil servant in highly publicising
you before going to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Dr Kelly: That is a conclusion
you can draw.
Q158 Sir John Stanley: Why did you
go along with it, Dr Kelly? You were being exploited, were you
not?
Dr Kelly: I would not say I was
being exploited.
Q159 Sir John Stanley: You had been
before them to rubbish Mr Gilligan and his source, quite clearly?
Dr Kelly: I just found myself
to be in this position out of my own honesty in acknowledging
the fact that I had interacted with him. I felt obliged to make
that statement once I realised that I may possibly be that source.
Until then, I have to admit that I was out of the country for
most of the time this debate was going on so I was not following
the actual interactions that were going on. It was not until I
was alerted to the transcript by a friend that I actually even
considered that I might be the source.
| 
