Tough morning for MoD man

By Mark Davies BBC News Online political reporter at the Hutton Inquiry

If Martin Howard has faced tougher mornings in his career as a civil servant than he did on Tuesday then they must have been extremely rough indeed.

The deputy chief of defence intelligence was the first witness at the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly to face cross-examination.

And if his two-hour experience is anything to go by, the next few days of the inquiry promise uncomfortable moments for those waiting in the wings.

If Mr Gompertz nigh on savaged the Ministry of Defence man, James Dingemans, counsel to the inquiry, dealt some telling blows as the session wound up

Mr Howard sat hunched in the witness box as for the first time the Kelly family - via Jeremy Gompertz QC - publicly questioned officials about their role in the naming of the weapons expert.

And if Mr Gompertz nigh on savaged the Ministry of Defence man, James Dingemans, counsel to the inquiry, dealt some telling blows as the session wound up.

Much of the morning centred on the "naming strategy" agreed in the MoD, via which Dr Kelly's identity would be confirmed to journalists if they came up with the weapons expert's name.

Mr Gompertz, stern and brisk, described the strategy as "a parlour game for journalists" or "like a game of Russian roulette". Either way, it was "cynical and irresponsible" and Dr Kelly had been treated "shabbily".

Mr Howard, who had first been questioned by David Lloyd Jones QC for the MoD, quietly denied the suggestions, and insisted throughout the session that Dr Kelly had understood that his name would eventually come out once it was announced that he had admitted talking to the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan.

Thick and fast

Mr Gompertz, who greeted those answers he clearly wasn't happy about with a world weary air of disbelief, had begun by going straight to one of the big remaining questions about the "naming strategy" - who had decided that Dr Kelly's name should be confirmed?

Dingemans: Telling questions

That decision was in the Q&A briefing papers prepared for press officers faced with questions about the official, said Mr Howard. And that had been approved by MoD permanent secretary Sir Kevin Tebbitt, he added.

The questions came thick and fast. Was there a deliberate policy to name Dr Kelly? Wasn't it inevitable that journalists would put two and two together? What did Dr Kelly know of the strategy?

Mr Howard battened down the hatches and just about got through the storm. Some questions were not for him. There was no "covert" attempt to identify Dr Kelly. The scientist had accepted his name would probably come out.

But Mr Gompertz wasn't going to leave it at that. What about an earlier draft of the Q&A papers, which had suggested there was no need to name Dr Kelly - the subsequent change in approach represented "a sea change", he said. Not at all, said Mr Howard.

Painful

There was little respite for the intelligence chief as Andrew Caldecott QC, representing the BBC, took over. Mr Howard was forced to admit making an error in saying earlier that there had been a final meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee to sign off the Iraq arms dossier.

And he insisted that due regard had been given to concerns about the dossier expressed by officials.

It was a long, painful session all round for Mr Howard. So by the time Mr Dingemans rose, with the lunchtime sandwiches already lined up for the legal teams in the corridor outside, the MoD official must have been relishing the chance to head gratefully for the sunshine.

Square-jawed and genial, the counsel to the inquiry, put Mr Howard at ease. There was no desire, was there, he said, to put Dr Kelly's name in the public domain?

That's right, said Mr Howard. And it was important to make a press statement about an official coming forward to avoid accusations of a cover-up?, asked Mr Dingemans.

Yes, and it was also important to put the record straight after Andrew Gilligan's BBC report on the dossier, replied Mr Howard.

'Vice'

So why then, asked Mr Dingemans, changing tone, had at least one journalist received a further briefing about Dr Kelly which suggested he was a minor figure?

Gompertz accused the MoD of a "cynical and irresponsible" strategy

Why, when senior government figures took such time and care in drawing up the press statement, was the weapons expert's approval sought only by reading it to him as he drove back from RAF Honington?

Why did the Q&A briefing paper change over the weekend before the statement was made?

Surely, said Mr Dingemans, the "whole vice" of the naming strategy was that Dr Kelly's name could come out at any time?

And while Dr Kelly may have understood that his name would eventually come out, presumably he didn't expect his employer to actually confirm his identity?

They were telling questions to which Mr Howard had answers which one suspects did little to satisfy the thirst of the lawyers prowling the court room. And over the next few days they will return again and again.