Correspondence between the Committee and
the BBC
Letter from the Chairman to Andrew Gilligan,
dated 10 July 2003
The Foreign Affairs Committee wishes to receive
answers to the following questions.
On what date, and at what time, did you meet
the single source whose information formed the basis of your evidence
to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the 45 minutes claim?
Are you satisfied that the evidence you gave
before the Committee on 19 June was in every particular truthful
and accurate? Is there anything you wish to add to or correct
in what you said in oral evidence?
I would be obliged if you were to reply to this
letter not later than 4 o'clock tomorrow, 11 July.
Donald Anderson
Chairman of the Committee
Letter from Andrew Gilligan, BBC News
to the Chairman, dated 11 July 2003
Thank you for your letter.
I regret that, as I said to the Committee when
I gave evidence, I can provide no further information about my
source, or the circumstances surrounding my contact with him,
because I have a professional and legal duty of confidence to
him, Committee members appeared to accept and even support this
stance when I came before you last month. Not discussing confidential
sources is general BBC policy and universal journalistic practice.
The Ministry of Defence has suggested that someone
it describes as a middle-ranking official, tangentially involved
in the dossier, may be my source, though it does not know he is.
Can I remind the Committee of two of my source's claims which
your proceedings confirmed to be true—that the 45-minute
point derived from one, uncorroborated informant; and that it
arrived late in the process. Such facts could only have been known
to someone closely involved in compiling the dossier until a late
stage.
On your second question, I am happy to confirm
that my evidence was truthful and accurate. The transcript (Q405-6)
makes clear that when I spoke of four different sources I was
enumerating the number of people within the intelligence community
who had expressed disquiet to me over the Government's handling
of intelligence on Iraq. I should probably also have repeated
this in my response to Q417.
I have also discussed the issue of Iraq, the
dossier and WMD with many of my other contacts within Government.
Some of those conversations were attempts to corroborate elements
of the story provided to me by my original source. As a defence
correspondent I hold many meetings, authorised and unauthorised
with people who work for the Ministry of Defence.
I hope this is helpful.
Andrew Gilligan
BBC News
Letter from the Chairman to Andrew Gilligan,
BBC News, dated 15 July 2003
Thank you for your letter of 11 July.
The Committee has considered your reply to its
questions, and wishes to receive a full reply to the question
which you have refused to answer: on what date, and at what time,
did you meet the single source whose information formed the basis
of your evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the 45
minutes claim?
The Committee further requires your attendance
before it at 3 o'clock on Thursday 17 July in Committee Room 16,
to give oral evidence in private. The Committee will be prepared
to consider sympathetically any request by you not to publish
part of the transcript of evidence.
I would be grateful to receive your reply as
soon as possible.
Donald Anderson
Chairman
Letter from Andrew Gilligan, BBC News,
to the Chairman, dated 16 July 2004
Thank you for your letter of 15 July.
I understand and appreciate your, and of course
the Government's, interest in the identity of my source.
However, I must respectfully repeat the answer
I gave you in my last letter—that I cannot, and will never,
answer any question about any of my contacts with any confidential
source. Even information which might seem innocuous, such as the
dates of meetings, could help the Government in what is clearly
an exercise in elimination. Any conversation I may have had with
Dr Kelly also fails in to this category. Not discussing confidential
sources is a necessary principle of free journalism which was
supported by the Committee in my appearance before it. I would
reiterate this principle at all opportunities. Whether you wish
to ask me by letter or in person, in public or in private, my
answer will always be the same—no comment.
I have discussed your request with the BBC's
director-general, Greg Dyke, as the BBC's Editor-in-Chief and
with its director of news, Richard Sambrook, and I have their
complete support for my position.
I have already said all I intend to say on this
matter. I am due to leave for the US later today to cover the
Prime Minister's visit and to pursue the issue of Iraq WMD through
your sister committees in Congress. I will delay my trip to appear
before the Committee if you absolutely insist. However, any appearance
by me would add nothing to the evidence I have already given you.
Andrew Gilligan
BBC News
Letter from the Chairman to Andrew Gilligan,
BBC News, dated 16 July 2003
Thank you for your letter of 16 July.
We insist upon your attendance and look forward
to your assisting us with our inquiry tomorrow at 3.00 pm in Committee
Room 16.
Donald Anderson
Chairman
Letter from Andrew Gilligan, BBC News,
to the Chairman, dated 20 July 2003
Following my appearance in private session before
the Committee on Thursday there were very sharp differences between
us over the nature of my evidence. I considered that those members
of the Committee who were present misinterpreted my evidence.
Because of these differences I wanted the transcript of my evidence
to be made public as quickly as possible so that I could defend
myself.
However, in the light of David Kelly's tragic
death, and the calls for restraint from all sides, I would like
to withdraw my agreement that the transcript be brought into the
public domain. I believe that publication of the transcript now
would result in yet further highly contentious speculation and
comment which would serve only to raise the temperature of public
debate still further and cause more distress to all involved.
I agree with you that it would be preferable
to defer such comment until Lord Hutton's inquiry. I hope in the
circumstances that you will agree that it is better to place the
transcript before Lord Hutton rather than publish it generally.
Andrew Gilligan
BBC News
Letter from the Clerk to John Dickie,
BBC, dated 21 July 2003
I enclose a copy of the transcript of Andrew
Gilligan's evidence given before the Foreign Affairs Committee
in private on 17 July. I should be grateful if you would arrange
for the transcript to be checked and returned to reach me by the
morning of Thursday 24th July.
Alterations should only be made that are:
— restricted to the correction of inaccuracies
in the printing or reporting of the evidence. (Substantive corrections
will only be accepted in clear cases of the shorthand writer mishearing
the witness).
— restricted to the correction of matters
of fact which do not materially alter the general sense of any
answer.
Corrections will only be accepted if they adhere
to these rules and are made at the discretion of the committee
staff.
If you would like to explain or give any additional
information, please submit a footnote. If you would like to submit
a memorandum it would be most helpful if you could indicate to
which question your document refers.
Nothing in this transcript should be made public
until authorised by the Committee.
You asked whether the shorthand writers' tapes
could be supplied. I have taken advice, and I regret that this
will not be possible.
Mr Anderson has asked me to reply through you
to Andrew Gilligan's letter of 20 July. Having consulted colleagues,
Mr Anderson is content to delay publication of the transcript,
on the grounds that there are compelling personal circumstances.
The Committee will announce the delay on Thursday.
Steve Priestley
Clerk of the Committee
| 
