Hutton thrusts 'body blow' at BBC

Jon Silverman Home affairs analyst

The train of events which led to the setting up of the Hutton Inquiry began with a piece of journalism.

And it is the quality of journalism displayed by the BBC's Andrew Gilligan and the subsequent corporate failings of the BBC which lie at the heart of the Hutton Report.

Lord Hutton is devastating in his assessment of the evidence given to his inquiry by Mr Gilligan about the fateful meeting on May 22, 2003, with Dr David Kelly.

Mr Gilligan's central allegation was said to be unfounded

Mr Gilligan, says the report, testified about the two versions of his discussion with Dr Kelly which he had entered on his personal organiser.

He also admitted that a manuscript note of the meeting, written up the day after, had been lost.

Lord Hutton concludes: "I have considerable doubts as to how reliable Andrew Gilligan's evidence is concerning what Dr Kelly said to him. "

That contrasts with his assessment of two other BBC journalists who gave evidence, Susan Watts and Gavin Hewitt, both of whom, says Lord Hutton, "I regard as an accurate and reliable witness."

THE HUTTON REPORT Full Report (PDF file 2MB) Hutton report in full (html version) Chapter 12: Summary

However, Lord Hutton also speculates that Dr Kelly said more to Andrew Gilligan than he intended to.

For this, he cites Susan Watts, who said "Dr Kelly could be gossipy and chatty with a journalist."

Lord Hutton writes: "It may be that he didn't realise the gravity of the situation he was helping to create by discussing intelligence matters with Andrew Gilligan."

Lord Hutton has undoubtedly delivered a body blow to the BBC's corporate culture.

Amongst the flaws he pinpoints are, "the failure of the BBC management to appreciate the gravity of the allegations made against the government in the 0607 Today broadcast ".

'Defective'

By allowing such a devastating claim to be broadcast unscripted and without any oversight, the BBC's editorial system was "defective".

But Lord Hutton goes further and castigates the BBC for attempting to draw a distinction between reporting the views of a source and directly impugning the integrity of the government.

"I am unable to accept the distinction... this is not a distinction recognised by the law in relation to actions for defamation."

[One comment] will give comfort to those who continue to argue that politics, and not intelligence, was at the heart of the way the government made its case for going to war

This is a condemnation which will be studied with interest by many other news organisations.

Lord Hutton's criticism of the BBC's Board of Governors will also have deep ramifications, beyond the resignation of the chairman, Gavyn Davies.

He says: "The governors should have recognised more fully that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the government's complaints."

Lord Hutton's prescription is for the governors to have launched their own investigation into Andrew Gilligan's account of his meeting with Dr Kelly rather than relying on imperfect assurances from BBC management.

This is a view of the governors' role and obligations which runs counter to years of custom and practice at the BBC.

'Subconsciously influenced'

Although the report exonerates the government entirely of the charge of acting duplicitously or dishonourably in authorising the disclosure of Dr Kelly's name as Mr Gilligan's source, there is a little-noticed sting in its comments about the drawing up of the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Hutton notes drily that "it can't be ruled out that the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett, and his officials may have been subconsciously influenced by Number 10's desire for as strong a case as possible, compatible with the intelligence, to be made in the dossier."

With his forensic background, the opposition leader, Michael Howard, picked out this comment in the Commons debate - and it will give comfort to those who continue to argue that politics, and not intelligence, was at the heart of the way the government made its case for going to war.