The Hutton Inquiry

NONE: Is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Would this be a convenient time? MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, could I mention I am almost at the limit of my permitted time.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. MR LLOYD-JONES: There are a number of other matters I should, with your Lordship's permission, canvass with Ms Teare. I hope it will be of assistance to your Lordship if I did that.

LORD HUTTON: Certainly, by all means. We will proceed after lunch. You would not like to do it now? MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, no, if I could do it this afternoon I would be very grateful.

LORD HUTTON: Very well. Thank you very much.

LORD HUTTON: Yes Mr Lloyd-Jones.

MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, thank you. Ms Teare, I think we had reached the afternoon of Tuesday 8th July and the question of your involvement with the Q and A material during the course of the afternoon. What was your contribution to the redrafting of the Q and A material, at that stage?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What was your contribution and what was Mr Howard's contribution to the draft?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Could we have on the screen, please, CAB/21/5? We looked at this this morning. This is the draft which you had sent over to the Permanent Secretary's office that morning and you were working on. We see in that draft it was proposed the individual would be told before his name was confirmed. Do you see that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: That is not in the third and final draft. Can you tell us why not?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did there come a time when Sir Kevin came back from, I think it was Portsmouth?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did he come back to his office?

MR LLOYD-JONES: You have said that at some point you went back to your office. You are in the Metropole Building, I think?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did there come a time you were summoned back to Sir Kevin's office?

MR LLOYD-JONES: When you saw Sir Kevin on your return and his return, what did he say to you?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did he show you the draft?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Had it changed since you had last seen it? Had the version which Sir Kevin brought back changed since you had last seen it?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Do you recall in what respect?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Were any further changes then made to the statement in Sir Kevin's office?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Do you know what happened to the statement then, once it had been finalised?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was anything reported to you subsequently about that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: At that stage, did you have authority to use the Q and A brief?

MR LLOYD-JONES: So what did you do about that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you show it to him?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did he read it?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What did he say?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was anything said about asking Dr Kelly to approve the Q and A brief?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Why do you say that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: So what did you do, at that point?

MR LLOYD-JONES: To be released to whom?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What about the Q and A brief, did you do anything in terms of instructing the press office as to how the Q and A brief should be applied?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Could we have that on the screen please, MoD/1/62. It may assist you to have it there simply to refresh your memory, but in order to be able to operate a Q and A brief, at least in relation to the questions as to the identity of the person concerned, people in the press office needed to know the identity of that person, did they not?

MR LLOYD-JONES: How could it operate if they did not know the identity of the person concerned?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Pausing there, who, amongst you and your staff, knew the identity of the person concerned?

MR LLOYD-JONES: You were the only two?

MR LLOYD-JONES: So what would happen if someone in the press office, the duty officer, overnight, received a call asking: is it Mr Jones?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Before we get to the next day, during that evening did you receive any calls?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Were any of them enquiring about the identity?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you tell them?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you tell any of them that although you would not reveal the name, you would confirm it if they already knew it?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Why did you consider it appropriate to say that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What interest were you seeking to protect by taking that course?

LORD HUTTON: Pass information on to whom?

LORD HUTTON: Pass information on to whom that Dr Kelly name was coming up?

LORD HUTTON: I thought you said you could pass information on.

MR LLOYD-JONES: At this point -- we are still on the evening of 8th July -- were you aware, at that time, that earlier that day the Secretary of State had written a letter to the BBC?

MR LLOYD-JONES: How were you aware of that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did the MoD press office release that letter to the media?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you receive any press queries about that letter?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Can I ask when that was?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What was the nature of the query?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What was your response to that query?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Right. Could we have on the screen, please, MoD/32/46? You may be able to read that, Ms Teare. I am afraid we will need to see the full width of the page. Can you see a line, about halfway down the page?

MR LLOYD-JONES: I am going to ask you in a moment about the entry immediately above that line. First, is the press office at the MoD open 24 hours a day?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Is a log kept 24 hours a day of enquiries received?

MR LLOYD-JONES: So during what hours would the log be kept?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Until what time?

MR LLOYD-JONES: If we look at that entry, on the face of it it appears to be an entry in relation to something that happened at 09.45 on the morning of 8th July.

MR LLOYD-JONES: Yes. Have you caused any enquiries to be made in the press office about this?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Have you made enquiries as to whether Mr Rhodes was, in fact, the duty press officer that night of the 8th to the 9th?

MR LLOYD-JONES: If we look at the entry, the press officer was Howard Rhodes. Caller Finlo Nelson -- can you read it on your copy? Thank you. Finlo Nelson Rohrer. Origination, BBC online: "Can we have a copy of Geoff Hoon's letter to Gavyn Davies?" We see recorded there the response -- would that be the response made by Mr Rhodes?

MR LLOYD-JONES: It reads: "This is private correspondence and will remain so as far as we are concerned." Did you survey the press coverage on this matter following the 8th July?

MR LLOYD-JONES: So far as this particular aspect is concerned, did you examine press reports?

MR LLOYD-JONES: In those reports did you find any direct quotes from the letter which the Secretary of State had written to the BBC?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you draw any conclusion from that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was the MoD press office aware of whether any reply had been received to that letter?

MR LLOYD-JONES: On the evening of Tuesday 8th July, did the press office do anything to assist Dr Kelly once the statement had been published?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Moving on, then, to 9th July, was there a Secretary of State's briefing meeting that morning?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you attend it?

MR LLOYD-JONES: How clear is your recollection as to what was discussed at the meeting?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Do you recall who was there?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What is your recollection as to what was discussed?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was anything said about the Q and A material?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Would you have had any particular reason to do that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Later that morning, do you recall, when back in your own office, receiving a telephone call from Mr Tom Kelly?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was anyone else in the room with you at that time?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was she able to hear the conversation you had with Mr Kelly?

MR LLOYD-JONES: How clear is your recollection of the conversation which followed?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Were you aware of what information may have been supplied to Mr Kelly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office --

MR LLOYD-JONES: -- following that conversation?

MR LLOYD-JONES: During the morning of 9th July, did you take any press calls?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Who would have taken the calls?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you receive any reports of what was happening?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What sort of questions were being put by callers in relation to the matter of Dr Kelly?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was that list provided?

MR LLOYD-JONES: How did the press officers respond to the questions of that sort you have just described?

MR LLOYD-JONES: It has been suggested that The Times put 21 names to the press office, is that right?

MR LLOYD-JONES: There came a point in the late afternoon when the Financial Times phoned and put the correct name. Did you take that call?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What did you say?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Once Dr Kelly's name had been confirmed to the Financial Times by you, was there any change in the approach adopted by the press office to handling these calls?

MR LLOYD-JONES: At that point --

LORD HUTTON: The press office still did not know?

MR LLOYD-JONES: At that point who in the press office staff knew the name of Dr Kelly?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did that remain the case?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Do you recall Kate Wilson being in your room later that evening when she received a call from The Times?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Did you overhear that conversation?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What did you say?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Ms Teare, was it ever your intention the Q and A brief or the way in it which it was used should be some device for secretly leaking Dr Kelly's identity and making it public?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Were you aware what the press office was doing on that evening of the 9th to assist Dr Kelly?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What would have been the point of sending a press officer?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Do you know why that was not done sooner?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Was a press officer in fact sent to Dr Kelly's home?

MR LLOYD-JONES: When you confirmed the name of the individual to the Financial Times, whom did you tell that you had done that?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Finally, and very briefly, Ms Teare, the FAC hearing took place on 15th July and Dr Kelly appeared to give evidence. Did the press office provide any assistance to Dr Kelly in respect of that appearance?

MR LLOYD-JONES: What was the press officer's role on that occasion?

MR LLOYD-JONES: Thank you, Ms Teare. I am very grateful, my Lord, for the additional time.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Mr Gompertz.

MR GOMPERTZ: Ms Teare, let us start with the 9th July. The first identification was made at 5.30 approximately in the evening.

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Why was it that Dr Kelly was not notified of this fact at all until he telephoned at about 8 o'clock?

MR GOMPERTZ: Had you alerted Dr Wells to the fact that he might be needed in order to inform Dr Kelly of his identification?

MR GOMPERTZ: Why not?

MR GOMPERTZ: Why had he not been notified he might be needed as a matter of urgency to telephone Dr Kelly?

MR GOMPERTZ: I do not follow that. I am sure it is my fault. Had anybody contacted Dr Wells to say: you may be needed at short notice to contact Dr Kelly to tell him he has been identified by the press?

MR GOMPERTZ: Why could not Mrs Wilson telephone Dr Kelly direct? She had done so the night before after all.

MR GOMPERTZ: You do not think, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been very much better if Dr Kelly had had something like two hours' notice rather than 10 minutes' notice to leave the house?

MR GOMPERTZ: Can I go to the Q and A material, please? In the first draft produced by yourself and Mrs Wilson on the evening of Friday 4th July, the first two questions were to the effect: who is the official? Answer: we are not prepared to name him. Question: why not? Answer: we have released all the relevant details. There is nothing to gain by releasing the name of the individual who has come forward voluntarily. You thought that was the proper approach, did you?

MR GOMPERTZ: I think the answer to my question was a simple "yes" rather than an answer taking something like several minutes. The question I asked you was: on the Friday evening when you put those first two questions and answers in the draft Q and As, did you think that that was a proper approach? The answer surely is "yes", is it not?

MR GOMPERTZ: Well, it had not appeared in a paper on the Monday, either, had it?

MR GOMPERTZ: And yet in the second draft, which was produced on the Monday, the position had changed very radically, had it not?

LORD HUTTON: Ms Teare, accepting that but just going back to Mr Gompertz's question, and I appreciate you say the situation was changing and evolving, but the question to you was: when you drafted that first question and answer, and it contained the view that the name would not be given, did you think that was the proper approach to take, at that time, in those circumstances?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. I see. Thank you.

MR GOMPERTZ: The name had not appeared in the media by the Monday evening, had it?

MR GOMPERTZ: So that had not changed, had it?

MR GOMPERTZ: So why did the change take place in the second draft, which by all means look at if you wish, but I am sure you are very familiar with it. Why was there the change to "if the correct name is put to us from a number of callers we will need to tell the individual we are going to confirm his name before doing so"?

MR GOMPERTZ: The decision to name or not name would not be one to be taken by the press office, would it?

MR GOMPERTZ: So who took the decision to make the change in the second draft to the format I have just put to you?

MR GOMPERTZ: From it being: we will not name the individual involved, nothing to be gained by doing so, to: if the correct name is put, we will have to go back to the individual and confirm his name before doing so. Who authorised or was responsible for that change?

MR GOMPERTZ: You think there is no difference between the first draft and the second draft. Is that what you are really saying?

MR GOMPERTZ: So are you saying that you were responsible for this change?

MR GOMPERTZ: Let us go on to the draft as used. Would you like to look at that? It is MoD/1/62. Do you accept that there is a change between, at any rate, the first draft that you prepared and this draft with regard to the naming: "If the correct name is given [underlined] we can confirm it ...", and so on. Do you accept there is a change there?

MR GOMPERTZ: Who authorised that approach?

MR GOMPERTZ: Would you like to answer the question?

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Who approved it?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. Did the Secretary of State see this draft?

MR GOMPERTZ: No?

MR GOMPERTZ: What about the routine press meeting on 9th July which you attended and which other people attended as well?

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Did the Secretary of State see that document at that meeting?

MR GOMPERTZ: You see, we have heard some evidence to suggest that he did, and that there was some brief discussion about this document at that meeting.

MR GOMPERTZ: You know that, I expect. Do you agree or disagree with that evidence or do you not remember?

MR GOMPERTZ: Nobody said that there was a long discussion.

MR GOMPERTZ: A brief discussion is what I put to you.

MR GOMPERTZ: To the Secretary of State?

MR GOMPERTZ: And no doubt in order to outline the material you would have had the document with you.

MR GOMPERTZ: And no doubt you would have shown it to him?

MR GOMPERTZ: Do you know or not know?

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Let us look at the history of the statements, very briefly. Can we look, first, at MoD/17/2, which, for whatever reason, we, on behalf of the family, saw for the first time this morning.

MR GOMPERTZ: I am not suggesting it is your fault. What I would like to know is: is that your draft or not?

MR GOMPERTZ: Certainly. Can we scroll down?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. Submitted to whom and when, please?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. What was actually used as a press statement we can see on MoD/1/67. Is that right?

MR GOMPERTZ: That was what you released on 8th July at 5.45 pm.

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Upon whose instructions did you release that statement?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. Is that the document that he brought back with him from the meeting at No. 10?

MR GOMPERTZ: Very well. There are changes, however, are there not, from the draft which you had submitted --

MR GOMPERTZ: -- to the Permanent Secretary?

MR GOMPERTZ: So they were inserted, as you understand it, at No. 10?

MR GOMPERTZ: Is that right?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. One other matter. If the MoD did not wish to release Dr Kelly's name, could it not, in response to an enquiry, say this: we will neither confirm nor deny any name?

MR GOMPERTZ: What is wrong with it? You were about to tell us, I apologise, I interrupted you.

MR GOMPERTZ: So on the one hand it was not acceptable that they might be wrongly identified.

MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. Did you consider, though, that if that did happen it would not be through the agency of the MoD, would it, because you had not either confirmed nor denied their name?

MR GOMPERTZ: Do you know whether any assessment was undertaken as to the pros and cons of releasing information of the kind that appears in the statement and in the Q and As which would lead to Dr Kelly's identification, against adopting a stone wall attitude, if I can put it in that way, of declining to cooperate with the press at all? Was anything like that undertaken?

MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you very much.

LORD HUTTON: Mr Knox, yes.

MR KNOX: You said in your evidence that production of Q and A material is quite normal in a case when a press announcement is being put out, is that correct?

MR KNOX: Is it standard practice that the following should happen: first, that a press announcement is agreed with a civil servant concerned in a story which contains some information about that civil servant but at the same time Q and A briefings are prepared which give more details about the identity of that civil servant over and above those agreed in the press statement?

MR KNOX: It certainly would not be a standard practice to agree a press statement expressly with a civil servant which contains some details about him and not tell him about further details you are going to be releasing as part of a Q and A briefing if necessary, is it?

MR KNOX: It is not really usual at all, is it, to even make press statements about civil servants or indeed to prepare Q and A briefings in relation to them?

MR KNOX: I think the answer to my question is "yes", is that right?

MR KNOX: It is not usual, is it, to give a Q and A briefing and also prepare a press statement when you are talking about the identity of civil servants, is it?

MR KNOX: I just want to consider the question of the fairness with which Dr Kelly was dealt with. Your duty, presumably, in the press office, is to give advice and support to Dr Kelly relating to the practicalities of dealing with the media; is that right?

MR KNOX: You presumably wanted to deal fairly with Dr Kelly; is that right?

MR KNOX: That was, presumably, very important?

MR KNOX: By the time that Mr Hatfield spoke to Dr Kelly at about 4.30 or so on Tuesday afternoon, 8th July --

MR KNOX: -- he had a press statement which he was going to try to agree with Dr Kelly; that is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: By that time you had already worked out the basic Q and A strategy which you were going to use in connection with that press statement when the press made calls as a result of the press statement; that is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: So it is probably right -- and I think we heard from Mr Hatfield this morning anyway, it is probably right that by the time the press statement had been drafted to agree with Dr Kelly, the Q and A briefing material had also been prepared. That is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: Shall we assume for present purposes it had been approved by the time that Mr Hatfield agreed the press statement with Dr Kelly? Assume that for present purposes. Could we just call up MoD/1/62? It is right, is it not, that the press statement, we need not go to that for the moment, does undoubtedly contain some details about Dr Kelly, without naming him? That is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: If you drop down this page you will see that further details are going to be given to the press: "How long has he been in the MoD?" "He has been in his current position for 3 to 4 years. Before that he was a member of UNSCOM. "Did the official play any part in drawing up the dossier? "He was involved in providing historical details ... "Is he a senior figure? ... "Is he still working for MoD? "Yes. "Is he in Iraq? "No, though he visited recently for a week. "Is he a member of the ISG? "No." Those are further details about Dr Kelly that were not agreed with him in the press statement.

MR KNOX: You would not give it out wholesale but you would give it out if you were asked the relevant questions?

MR KNOX: So in other words, perhaps you could explain, at what point would you give out the individual bits of material?

MR KNOX: So if someone said, "Is he in Iraq?", at that point you would say "No, though he visited Iraq recently".

MR KNOX: These are effectively additions to the details provided in the press statement?

MR KNOX: I think we have already agreed this is a totally unusual situation.

MR KNOX: Surely, in fairness to Dr Kelly, to help him deal with the media, should you not have ensured that Mr Hatfield told Dr Kelly (a) that his employers were going to tell journalists all these extra details; and (b) you, that is the MoD, his employers, were going to tell journalists in terms that you would confirm his name. Should that not have been done as well as agreeing the press statement with Dr Kelly?

MR KNOX: Let us just deal with the matter, as a matter of fairness. Dr Kelly is called in the afternoon in order to agree a press statement with him; that is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: He would naturally suppose from that that certain information is going to be released about him in that press statement.

MR KNOX: He is not told by the MoD that further information will be released about him by the MoD press office, is he?

LORD HUTTON: Yes, carry on Ms Teare. You were going to add something.

MR KNOX: I understand "unusual" or "not unusual". What I am trying to understand is this: why did you not tell Dr Kelly this is what you were proposing to do?

MR KNOX: Was there any reason for not telling Dr Kelly what you were intending to do in answer to questions from journalists?

MR KNOX: Would it not have been better and fairer to Dr Kelly to give him the full picture? Namely: (1) we will put out this press statement; (2) if we get asked certain questions we are going to have to answer them this way and thereby reveal further details about you. Would that not have been the fairer way of dealing with it?

MR KNOX: What was the point of agreeing the press statement with him?

MR KNOX: If that was the point of agreeing the press statement, surely there was every reason to tell him the whole story: not only are we going to put this statement out, but we are also going to give further details out which will almost certainly speed up the process by which your name comes into the public domain?

MR KNOX: It was part of the Q and A strategy that you would actually tell journalists you would confirm his name if the right name was given, was it not?

MR KNOX: That was one part of the strategy. The other part of the strategy was to give out further details if the right questions were asked. That is right, is it not?

MR KNOX: Yes. With respect, Ms Teare, the answer to my question is surely: yes, we would give out further details about Dr Kelly's identity to journalists if they asked the right questions. For instance: is he in Iraq? You would answer: no, though he visited Iraq recently for a week. That is the position.

MR KNOX: Ms Teare, the answer to my question is "yes", is it not? You would give out more information to journalists if they asked you the right questions. That was part of the Q and A material.

LORD HUTTON: I think Ms Teare may be dwelling on your word "strategy", Mr Knox.

MR KNOX: Leave aside "strategy". The effect of the Q and A was if journalists asked further questions you would give out further information about his identity.

MR KNOX: That had been approved but it had not been passed by Dr Kelly, had it?

MR KNOX: I understand that. But why not tell Dr Kelly -- it comes back to the same point. As a matter of fairness to Dr Kelly, so he knows precisely where he stands with his employers, that you his employers are proposing to release further information in certain circumstances about him over and above the press statement you are asking him to agree, as a matter of fairness to Dr Kelly why not tell him that?

MR KNOX: No. What I want to know is: why did you not tell him?

MR KNOX: Was there any consideration as to whether or not he should be told?

MR KNOX: Can I just ask you to look up CAB/21/5? If you scroll down a little bit, you will see, under the heading: "Is it X (ie the correct name)?": "If the correct name is put to us from a number of callers, we will need to tell the individual we are going to confirm his name before doing so." Do you see that?

MR KNOX: We know in the eventual Q and A you prepare there is no equivalent provision for telling Dr Kelly that his name is now being put by journalists.

MR KNOX: Presumably, therefore, there was a conscious decision to change from the approach you see in the first of these Q and As I have showed you to the eventual approach adopted in the final Q and A, is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Ms Teare, I appreciate the point you have been making that the question and answer has to be approved by a policy maker --

LORD HUTTON: -- but if you would look at the question this way: was it the position that your thinking on this matter was changing, in that in this draft you had said: if the correct name is given we will have to tell the individual we are going to confirm his name before doing so; and there is a change from that to the latter draft where that does not appear. What was your thinking as to that change, contrary to anything -- just what was in your mind?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

MR KNOX: Ms Teare, it is right, is it not, that Dr Kelly had not been told that the MoD would make his name public, had he?

MR KNOX: Well, I appreciate your difference, the distinction you make, but he had not been told the latter point either, had he? He had not been told: if the correct name is put to us, we will I am afraid have to give it out.

MR KNOX: In those circumstances, why did you not retain some provision for giving Dr Kelly express notice as to the time at which his name would come out?

MR KNOX: We know that after Mr Hatfield spoke of that to Dr Kelly to agree the press statement with him, Kate Wilson also, on Tuesday evening, spoke to him --

MR KNOX: -- on the telephone.

MR KNOX: It is right, is it not, that even she did not tell Dr Kelly what you in the press office were doing, namely telling journalists that you would give his name if the correct name was put? She did not tell him that, did she?

MR KNOX: I cannot understand, why did not even Kate Wilson tell Dr Kelly: look, journalists are ringing in at the moment and we have told them we are going to give your name if they get it; why did not even she tell him?

LORD HUTTON: Could you just explain that a little more? Certainly some callers from the press were told: if you give us the correct name we will confirm it; is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: But if we just concentrate on those who did ring up to try to find out the name of the civil servant.

LORD HUTTON: As regards those people who rang on that particular point, were they all told that: if you give me the correct name I will confirm it or were only some of them told it, or was it just the occasional one who was particularly pressing?

LORD HUTTON: As regards the calls you took, if the call was about the name of the civil servant, you said: if you give me the correct name I will give it to you.

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.

MR KNOX: In any event, Kate Wilson did not pass this on to Dr Kelly.

MR KNOX: It is right, is it not, that on 7th July you had several chats with Mr Campbell; is that right?

MR KNOX: Yes. Monday, 7th July. Would it be right that you had several chats with Mr Campbell about this matter?

MR KNOX: The reason I mention it is we have seen certain diary entries which seem to refer in terms to several chats with you, amongst other people. Do you not recall any discussions with Mr Campbell on 7th July?

MR KNOX: And that would have been about the Dr Kelly matter; is that right?

MR KNOX: Was not Mr Campbell very keen indeed to get Dr Kelly's name out into the public domain?

MR KNOX: But it was about the question of Dr Kelly, was it not?

MR KNOX: Can you remember what the discussion was, then?

MR KNOX: Ms Teare, with hindsight, thinking back on what happened, the inevitable effect of the Q and A approach was this surely: first, it was likely to increase the interest of journalists because you have this almost game of 20 questions; is that not right?

MR KNOX: Do you think it did have the effect of increasing the journalists' interests, the way that information was gradually being given to them?

MR KNOX: Did not the approach also mean this: that Dr Kelly's name would come out at a wholly unpredictable time?

MR KNOX: It would follow, would it not, also, that Dr Kelly himself would not have any proper notice of the fact or time at which his name was going to be revealed? That must be right.

MR KNOX: Yes. Would it not have been better to adopt a rather more upfront approach with Dr Kelly, in hindsight, and simply agree a particular time at which his name could be given to the press, so he would know exactly what was going on?

MR KNOX: You did not want to spring anything on Dr Kelly, is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Just on that point, Ms Teare, and I appreciate you say we are discussing the matter with hindsight, looking at what happened and bearing in mind the point you made that Mrs Wilson in fact rang him on the evening of the 8th July and said to consider alternative accommodation. But looking back, with hindsight, might it not have been better to have said to Dr Kelly that the MoD were proposing to name him in the statement but it would not be released for 24 hours and it would be released at a particular time? Suppose you would have said to him on the Monday afternoon: it will be released at 6 pm on the Tuesday afternoon. Then he would have known precisely when his name was going to come into the public arena, and if he had wanted to leave home he would have had the time to do it.

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: I quite appreciate that and you are making the point a lot of things would have to be unpicked. But even on that basis, it would have been open, let us say over the weekend, or on Monday 7th July, to have had a meeting with Dr Kelly and to have said to him: this is a matter of great public importance, the Ministry of Defence feels, because of the interests of the FAC and the general public interest, that we will have to put out a statement that you have come forward, and we consider that it would be better for you, as well as for the MoD, that we name you in the statement, and we are proposing to issue a statement in 24 hours' time. The point I am putting to you is, with hindsight, that that would have made it clear to him precisely when his name would become public and there would not have been the matter of him having to leave his home with Mrs Kelly in a rush, within about 10 minutes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. That has been mentioned by other witnesses. I appreciate that.

LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see. Yes.

MR KNOX: There are just two more points, Ms Teare. The first is this: you say the name would come out anyway. Surely it is not that simple for the press to print Dr Kelly's name, as there is no doubt they eventually did print it, as the mole or anything like that, because they would be worried about defamation questions, would they not?

MR KNOX: Well, if Dr Kelly was named as the person who had spoken to Mr Gilligan there would inevitably be questions as to whether that was a defamatory statement.

MR KNOX: You see, we have heard a lot about it being inevitable that Dr Kelly's name would have come out. But that is not necessarily the case at all, because unless the MoD confirmed that Dr Kelly is indeed the man there is some risk for the press in printing his name.

MR KNOX: I think you have also mentioned, in connection with this inevitability of the name coming out, that there was enormous press interest in the matter, is that right? Certainly Mr Baldwin in his evidence said that by 9th July the story had become a bit "anorakish", to use his word, and that interest was waning, and you said in your initial evidence last time round that after 9th July there was rather little interest in the story.

MR KNOX: That rather suggests that perhaps the story was not quite as of much interest to the press as you are now saying.

MR KNOX: Finally, I want to ask you one question about Mr Blitz. After you -- I think it may not have been you, but one of your assistants had confirmed the name of Dr Kelly to Mr Blitz?

MR KNOX: Mr Adams?

MR KNOX: But Mr Blitz, we understand, then asked you to ask for an interview with Dr Kelly; is that right?

MR KNOX: You refused?

MR KNOX: We know some time later Blitz got a call from Whitehall officials giving him further details about Dr Kelly.

MR KNOX: Are you able to explain how that came out?

MR KNOX: Thank you very much.

LORD HUTTON: Any re-examination? MR LLOYD-JONES: I have no re-examination, my Lord. It may assist if I mention that document MoD/17/2, which is a draft of the press statement produced on 7th July, to which Ms Teare referred in her evidence, was supplied to the Inquiry by the Ministry of Defence on 19th August. The covering letter from the Treasury Solicitor is MoD/17/1.

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Teare. We will rise now, Mr Dingemans, for 5 minutes.

MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell his Lordship your full name?

MR DINGEMANS: Qualifications?

MR DINGEMANS: Professional.

MR DINGEMANS: Any publications?

MR DINGEMANS: Has anyone instructed you in relation to this matter?

MR DINGEMANS: They are solicitors for Mr Gilligan?

MR DINGEMANS: What did they ask you to do?

MR DINGEMANS: Are there many types of computer like that?

MR DINGEMANS: Are you an expert in all 400?

MR DINGEMANS: How have you analysed this organiser?

MR DINGEMANS: So what did you do?

MR DINGEMANS: Before you had seen the organiser, had it been preserved, as it were, evidentially?

MR DINGEMANS: So how did you extract the data from the machine?

MR DINGEMANS: Before you extracted the data, did you do any other checks on the machine?

MR DINGEMANS: Was it accurate?

MR DINGEMANS: Is that usual?

MR DINGEMANS: Where did you upload the data to?

MR DINGEMANS: How long did that take?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes. I do not need an exact time.

MR DINGEMANS: Was all the data extracted from the organiser?

MR DINGEMANS: Who is Professor Sammes?

MR DINGEMANS: And he has been instructed by the Inquiry.

MR DINGEMANS: But he is based at Shrivenham, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: Or has offices there which is near to a Ministry of Defence building, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: Is it for that reason that Farah & Co instructed you rather than Professor Sammes?

MR DINGEMANS: So were you the person that looked at the uploaded data?

MR DINGEMANS: Who did that?

MR DINGEMANS: And did you tell him what to do?

MR DINGEMANS: How did he extract those memoranda?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he extract any memoranda, having gone through this process?

MR DINGEMANS: How many?

MR DINGEMANS: May we have ANG/5/4?

MR DINGEMANS: Is this the first one, JP1? Go to the next page, JP2?

MR DINGEMANS: I rather infer that that is Julian Pike 1, 2, 3?

MR DINGEMANS: If we carry on scrolling through the pages you can see that. So 29 memoranda. Did he show those to you?

MR DINGEMANS: How do you get 29 memoranda when we have only had two printouts, as it were?

MR DINGEMANS: So you would not have needed any special software to read those?

MR DINGEMANS: And the others?

MR DINGEMANS: But left on the hard drive, as it were, of the organiser?

MR DINGEMANS: As sort of electronic fingerprints?

MR DINGEMANS: Are they dated?

MR DINGEMANS: And how are they dated?

MR DINGEMANS: If we are looking at JP1 or whatever JP we have on the screen, JP3. Can I take you to the top left-hand corner?

MR DINGEMANS: That is the year, is it?

MR DINGEMANS: Why is it dated 26th June?

MR DINGEMANS: Were there any memoranda dated before 22nd May?

MR DINGEMANS: With this text on it?

MR DINGEMANS: So what is an explanation for that, that the meeting we heard took place on the 22nd?

MR DINGEMANS: When you examined the organiser it was out by 1 hour 16 minutes; that is right, is it not?

MR DINGEMANS: But this meeting we know took place at either 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

MR DINGEMANS: So if it was still out by an hour and 15 minutes it would have got the right day, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: How do you adjust your clock? Is it like any other computer, you can alter the date and time?

MR DINGEMANS: Being out of kilter would be affected by changing batteries and the like?

MR DINGEMANS: Someone had been experimenting on the memo?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes. If you have a Sharp organiser, you have a lot of material there, it is a bit of a risk, you might lose it?

MR DINGEMANS: Do you save it anywhere?

MR DINGEMANS: When you examined the memoranda you had expected did you identify any anomalies?

MR DINGEMANS: They may all be capable of explanation?

MR DINGEMANS: Can you explain what they were and what explanation there might be?

MR DINGEMANS: The first one was what?

LORD HUTTON: What paragraph are we at, Mr Dingemans?

MR DINGEMANS: 27, my Lord.

MR DINGEMANS: Is there an explanation for that?

LORD HUTTON: Does that mean if you enter a memorandum on, let us say, 1st September of 2003 if months later you search back through that organiser in the way that you have done you may find that actual memorandum but with a quite different date on it?

LORD HUTTON: Yes, I see.

MR DINGEMANS: Second two anomalies?

MR DINGEMANS: Yes.

MR DINGEMANS: If we look at BBC/1/54. What Mr Gilligan told us when he produced this memoranda is he had run out of space on the first one, this is the first one, and then if we go to the next page you have Kelly continued.

MR DINGEMANS: He says they were both made at the same meeting.

MR DINGEMANS: But the one you saw, going back to the date in the text, had 21st in the time clock?

MR DINGEMANS: Does it give a time or just the date?

MR DINGEMANS: What is the explanation for that anomaly?

MR DINGEMANS: The fourth anomaly, what is that?

LORD HUTTON: Accidentally doing what?

MR DINGEMANS: If you look at it, do nothing to it but save it again, you get another fingerprint?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Fifth anomaly?

MR DINGEMANS: If we compare JP1 and JP15, and I think people have available that in hard copy, is JP1 the one dated 21st May? -- sorry, JP11. JP11 and JP15.

MR DINGEMANS: BBC/1/54, from recollection.

MR DINGEMANS: In JP11?

MR DINGEMANS: When is the first time you see the word "Campbell" mentioned?

MR DINGEMANS: No. If I take you to JP15.

MR DINGEMANS: Is that the first memo that mentions the word "Campbell"?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. I think we are looking at JP11 and JP15. They are in those respects effectively the same, are they?

MR DINGEMANS: What were your conclusions from this?

LORD HUTTON: Sorry, I am afraid I am not best in these technicalities, you will have to help me. If the clock went forward during the meeting, how does that explain the omission of the word "Campbell"?

MR DINGEMANS: That is something Mr Gilligan may be able to assist with.

MR DINGEMANS: I will ask him those questions. So there are no technical explanations for that. But if we look at JP11 and JP15. On JP11, top left-hand corner, we have the 21st May 2003, 05 for May and 21, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: And yet the first memo with Mr Campbell's name in it at JP15, if I am looking at that, that has 20030522, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: Which means that we can tell this -- tell me if I am getting this wrong, the memo, JP11, predates the memo JP15?

MR DINGEMANS: And, secondly, if they were both made at the meeting then the clock must have been some -- assuming the meeting was 4 o'clock for these purposes, lasts an hour, then the clock must have been some 16 hours out?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. You said computer clocks are frequently inaccurate.

MR DINGEMANS: Between 16 and 40 hours sounds quite a lot of inaccuracy.

MR DINGEMANS: Well, that is what I am asking about --

MR DINGEMANS: -- so that you can deal with that.

MR DINGEMANS: You have referred to some experimentation on the date and time. Do you know or have you been told who carried that out?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. There is only one set of experimentation, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: After you produced your report, when did you produce your report?

MR DINGEMANS: When were you instructed by Farahs on behalf of Mr Gilligan?

MR DINGEMANS: After you produced your report did Professor Sammes see it?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he make any comments on it?

MR DINGEMANS: We are going to hear from Professor Sammes. Can you explain to a lay person like myself what the gist of the comments were?

MR DINGEMANS: Did he give you any pointers as to how you might remedy that?

MR DINGEMANS: When did that take place?

MR DINGEMANS: Which is why you did not come and give evidence yesterday.

MR DINGEMANS: And as a result of that what did you do?

MR DINGEMANS: On these two memorandum?

MR DINGEMANS: What did Professor Sammes need you to do?

MR DINGEMANS: Do not bother. In a format. And he asked you to send that to him?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you send to him the documents that we see in hard form here?

MR DINGEMANS: Why was he concerned before?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you find out whether or not Mr Gilligan had saved this material to any other document at the time or any other computer at the time?

MR DINGEMANS: Have you been given access to that by Mr Gilligan?

MR DINGEMANS: So you were not even able to do what you did with the organiser on that computer material?

MR DINGEMANS: A final document, if I may, JP37. I am not sure I can call it up. What does this relate to, in relation to experimentation?

MR DINGEMANS: I am sorry, I told a lie. ANG/5/40. That should call it up. Is that JP37, if we scroll down to the bottom of the page?

MR DINGEMANS: Going up again, what is this about?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Thank you. Subject to that, is there anything else that you wanted to say in relation to your report?

MR DINGEMANS: Right. Okay. Thank you very much indeed.

LORD HUTTON: Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: Professor Sammes, please.

MR DINGEMANS: Professor, I am sorry, I am going to have to take you reasonably shortly.

MR DINGEMANS: But it is important you tell me anything that I am missing out. First of all, what is your full name?

MR DINGEMANS: And your qualifications?

MR DINGEMANS: Have you written any books in relation to computers?

MR DINGEMANS: Where are you based at the moment?

MR DINGEMANS: And the Royal Military College of Science is a Ministry of Defence establishment?

MR DINGEMANS: You have been instructed on behalf of the Inquiry; is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: To consider the report that was produced by Mr Wilding.

MR DINGEMANS: He has told us that he produced his report, I think on 12th September he told us. Did you look at that report?

MR DINGEMANS: Martin Smith is the solicitor to the Inquiry?

MR DINGEMANS: Of Clifford Chance, yes.

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

MR DINGEMANS: You looked through the report that Mr Wilding had produced?

MR DINGEMANS: And you made, I think -- and history has overtaken it a bit so if I may go shortly, tell me if I miss anything out -- a number of detailed suggestions about what might be done.

MR DINGEMANS: What does "decompressed" mean?

MR DINGEMANS: Or 255 spaces.

MR DINGEMANS: Sorry.

LORD HUTTON: You can be described as very eminent too, Mr Dingemans!

MR DINGEMANS: Sorry, I interrupted.

MR DINGEMANS: Why does it become important to decompress the file?

MR DINGEMANS: Putting it shortly, you were slightly concerned that the memoranda that had been printed off were not contiguous documents, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: We have heard about a meeting that you had yesterday and you suggested a practical way round, in the time available, this problem, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: So the text was then e-mailed to you in a hexadecimal format, is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: Did you look at it?

MR DINGEMANS: So we have now heard from Mr Wilding that the text that we have seen, the JP11 and JP15, was, for example, the text that he had sent you.

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

MR DINGEMANS: Right.

MR DINGEMANS: But those subsequent pieces of text appeared to have mirrored these earlier printouts?

MR DINGEMANS: That is what Mr Wilding has confirmed to us.

MR DINGEMANS: As a result of that, assuming Mr Wilding is right about having sent you the correct texts, and then having printed it out again, are you happy that the documents are at least contiguous?

MR DINGEMANS: Mr Wilding mentioned some other matters you might want to raise. What are those?

MR DINGEMANS: How would that help?

MR DINGEMANS: So with further work one might be able to put JP11, 12, 13 and 14 in an order?

MR DINGEMANS: May or may not, depending on --

MR DINGEMANS: Subject to that, is there anything else, in the very short examination that I have done with you, that I have missed out that is relevant?

MR DINGEMANS: But we do not have the laptop?

MR DINGEMANS: Is there anything else you wanted to add?

MR DINGEMANS: And who is he?

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Professor Sammes.

MR DINGEMANS: I think Ms Rogers is now going to deal with Mr Gilligan.

MS ROGERS: Mr Gilligan, this is the matter that we left from yesterday so that you could follow the experts having given their evidence to the Inquiry.

MS ROGERS: Can I first ask you this: we know that you handed your organiser to the BBC at some point; can you give the date on which that happened?

MS ROGERS: Did you carry out any experimentation on your organiser prior to that date?

MS ROGERS: Any experimentation. We have seen a test memo which was -- I do not have the reference. It is ANG/5/40.

MS ROGERS: What, with Mr Dingemans' agreement, has happened is that copies of two memoranda have been handed out, I hope generally, so that people can follow where we are. The Inquiry has previously seen your notes on the organiser. They are at BBC/4/198. I fear there may be another reference too, but ...

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

MS ROGERS: Who produced those notes for this Inquiry?

MS ROGERS: I think if we scroll down we see another.

MS ROGERS: When you looked at the organiser, were you aware of any other files on your organiser at that time?

MS ROGERS: I hope you have, or if not you can be given JP11 and JP15.

MS ROGERS: If your Lordship has a file, it is in tab 1. They have been placed, I hope, so that both can be looked at at the same time?

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Very well.

MS ROGERS: Can you first of all identify the document on the right-hand page?

LORD HUTTON: Sorry, I have the two pages -- I can look at them together. JP11 and JP15.

MS ROGERS: There is a file in which they are set out, so they are --

LORD HUTTON: Oh yes, I think that is it. Yes. Oh yes, I have. Yes. Yes. That is very helpful. Thank you.

MS ROGERS: Essentially what has been agreed with Mr Dingemans is I am going to identify the differences and take you through them for the opportunity to comment on them.

MS ROGERS: First of all, can you tell me -- we know that there is the extant file which we have just looked at -- the one that is produced to the Inquiry.

MS ROGERS: That we also know is identical to JP15.

MS ROGERS: Can you tell us when JP15 was created, first of all?

MS ROGERS: When did you create that document?

MS ROGERS: Looking at the version on the left for a moment, we see that about halfway down the page there is a reference to "45 min was single source". Can you tell us when and from whom you obtained that information?

MS ROGERS: And when?

MS ROGERS: Is it possible you obtained that information on the 21st May?

MS ROGERS: Can we take the document on the right and together put some numbers by text. If we put the number 1 by the first paragraph which starts "transformed [week before] pub..." Then put the number 2 by "most people in [intelligence]..." 3 by "Campbell". 4 by the side of the "real [information]", those two lines. 5 by "[uranium] from Africa". 6 by "10-15 [years ago]." 7 by "it was small..." 8 by "no usable [weapons]." 9 by "in one of the [jan]", put a bracket down running down from that, right down through nine lines of text ending in "[Middle East]".

LORD HUTTON: It is my fault. I have not discovered "Middle East".

MS ROGERS: It actually says "in ME". I am sorry, I am working from the expanded version as read by Mr Gilligan. It actually says on this file "in ME", that is in Middle East.

LORD HUTTON: I have a line "headed by major general"; where is it in relation to that?

MS ROGERS: It is four lines up. So the bracket runs from: "In one of the jan." The bracket closes after "in ME". Then we open a new bracket, 10, which runs from "there has been [proliferation]" down to the mysterious words "isqbay".

MS ROGERS: I hope if everyone has those references this will help when we look at the text. Over on the left-hand side of the page, four or five paragraphs down, we see the words "the dossier was transformed in the [week] before] [publication]". Could I ask you to put a 1 by the side of that? Looking a little further down to "45 min was single-source", could we put 1(a) beside that? Mr Gilligan, if one looks at the paragraph marked 1 on the left-hand page and 1 on the right-hand page, I am going to identify the differences. The words "the dossier was" do not appear. We start with "transformed". We have "week "wk" rather than "wekEK" and we have "pub" instead of "publish".

MS ROGERS: Can you explain those changes?

LORD HUTTON: Mr Gilligan, again I am sorry, you will have to help me with this. You say you created JP15 by writing this and noting this on your personal organiser, is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Had you already written something on your personal organiser in the course of that meeting?

LORD HUTTON: I am sorry. In other words, in the course of the meeting you wrote down on your organiser what appears in JP11; is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Well, then, on JP15, which you wrote at the end of the meeting when you were checking quotes, is that a complete rewriting or is it a filling in of the earlier writing?

LORD HUTTON: May I ask you again, just for me to understand this: is it analogous to the position if I had interviewed Dr Kelly and had made longhand notes but had not got everything down, and I then -- suppose I had done that with a blue pen and then I went back over it to check matters and where I wanted to add words with his agreement I would write in words with a red pen. Is that very roughly what it was?

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Yes.

MS ROGERS: Can I just ask you this: as you are taking notes during the conversation, are you getting down every word verbatim?

MS ROGERS: So on the text on the right-hand page we see the words "[most things in] dossier were [double source] but that was single-source", and on the left-hand side of the page in the paragraph marked 1 those words are not there but there are three dots.

MS ROGERS: Can you explain the change?

MS ROGERS: Looking at the second paragraph on the right-hand page, can you look over to the left-hand side and about a third of the way down you see the words "most people in [intelligence] weren't happy". So will you put a 2 beside that? We know that there are no changes there. Paragraphs 3 and 4 and 5 do not appear on the left-hand page. Can you explain why it is that they do not appear on the left but they do appear on the right?

LORD HUTTON: I am sorry, does that mean that the name "Campbell", whether it was first uttered by you or by Dr Kelly, only arose when you were going through, at the end, with Dr Kelly, what he had already told you?

LORD HUTTON: May it have been that the word "Campbell" was not uttered by you or by Dr Kelly until you were going over what he had previously told you at the end of your discussion?

LORD HUTTON: But why does "Campbell" then appear towards the start of that note?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

MS ROGERS: We have compared the taking of this kind of note with using a paper and pen. Do you ever use word processing software like Word?

MS ROGERS: Is there any comparison between using Word to edit documents and using the organiser?

MS ROGERS: So it is possible if you want to move text to move it or to overwrite it?

MS ROGERS: After paragraph 5, that is the uranium from Africa, that is another one which does not appear on the left-hand page. At 6 we have "10-15 years go there was a lot of info". If one looks to the left it is just above the halfway mark. So one can put a 6 by that text on the left-hand page. Again, there is no change in the substance. On the right-hand page, paragraph 7, again one can see it on the left-hand page about a third of the way up "it was small because you [could not] conceal a [large programme]." One sees I think a difference in spacing but not in text. If one puts a number 7 by the words "it was small" it has to cover three lines of text there as opposed to two lines of text. Again, is that a change that you can explain?

MS ROGERS: Sorry, it is not a change in the substance of the text, it is a change in the format, in the layout of it. There is a line break, I think one would call it, on the left.

MS ROGERS: If you see the words "it was small"?

MS ROGERS: If one can put a 7 beside that.

MS ROGERS: To include "the sanctions were effective, they did limit programme".

MS ROGERS: Looking on the right-hand page -- it may not be the most important point in the world -- one sees that it is reduced to two lines of text rather than two lines of text and a space.

MS ROGERS: 8 is "no usable [weapons]" and that is not reflected on the left-hand page?

MS ROGERS: Is your recollection clear about that or are you working backwards from the document?

MS ROGERS: There is a large block of text which we have bracketed as 9 on the right-hand page. If we look at the left, this is the first eight lines of text. We could bracket that and put a 9 by the first eight lines. If we look at the left, the line "not much coming out of detainees despite financial inventives [that should be incentives I think] ... they are..." is incomplete. If we look at the right-hand page we see the additional words, which you have explained are "in [quite good conditions] in [the Middle East]".

MS ROGERS: Do you know why it was incomplete on the left-hand page?

MS ROGERS: On the right-hand page we have marked a block of text with a 10. If we look on the left-hand page, it is towards the bottom, "there has been proliferation", one can bracket that as a 10, right the way down to "it is a big handicap..." There is no change at all between those two.

MS ROGERS: There is some text, if this has been marked on the left-hand page now, there is some text which does not have a marking by it, for example the single word "Saddam" which falls between blocks 7 and 10 on the left-hand page. Can you explain why that does not appear on the right?

MS ROGERS: Moving up a little bit more there are three lines of text: "Iraq Survey Group -- 1500 -- six months to 2 years. "War was a tragic failure of diplomacy, no direct [effort] to [engage] Iraq. "It was a football for everyone." Those words do not appear on the right. Can you explain that?

MS ROGERS: On the left-hand page, as well, we have, right at the foot of the page, "real debate as to whether the mobile labs are what they appear to be..." Could I just ask you to mark that with an 11? I was going to turn now to the other file, the Kelly continuation file, which is JP23 and JP25. The top two lines we can mark with the number 11 because that is the two lines which were on the foot of JP11. No change between the --

LORD HUTTON: I am sorry.

MS ROGERS: It should be in tab 2, my Lord, I am sorry. We have done the same, I hope.

LORD HUTTON: Yes, that is very helpful. Thank you.

MS ROGERS: The top two lines on JP25 can have the number 11 because they are the last two lines of text from JP11.

LORD HUTTON: Number 5?

MS ROGERS: I am sorry?

LORD HUTTON: You say put the number 5 against that?

MS ROGERS: 11, sorry. It is the last two lines.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Very well.

MS ROGERS: Again, what we have on these two memos is essentially the mirror of what we have been looking at. So we have a file dated the 21st according to your computer and a file dated the 22nd according to your computer. Again, can you confirm or explain when the document on the right, JP25, was made and when the document on the left, JP23, was made?

MS ROGERS: On the right-hand document, JP25, we can bracket all of the text, barring the first two lines, and mark it as 12. And we see that it is identical to the text on the left, including the typo of "enormosu" instead of "enormous", with two small differences. First of all, looking on the left we see three lines up from the bottom "his arsenal was small". If we look on the right we see "his [programme] was small". Comments on the change?

MS ROGERS: The second and final change is the additional words which we see on the penultimate line on the right "not really [mass destruction] in true meaning of] [w]ord". Again, we can look on the left we see they are not there. Can you explain why they are there on the right?

MS ROGERS: If it is to be suggested that you might have made the notes at JP15 and 25 at some time after you left the Charing Cross Hotel, how would you respond to that?

MS ROGERS: We know, because they have been produced by the experts, that there are a number of other versions of the document. There is a batch -- these have been copied only in hard copy form for your Lordship and for the lawyers. I am afraid we have not bothered with the ...

LORD HUTTON: Yes, very well. Yes.

MS ROGERS: So far as other copies are concerned, I think we can have them on screen. There is a JP14. It is probably ANG/5/17. I think there is a plus 3, just so that people with the screens can follow it. With Mr Dingemans' consent I will just identify the single change in this document. After the word "misinterpreted" we see that there is a single full stop. In JP15 there is a double full stop. I think, given the time, I will not ask for a comment about that. There are two further documents which Mr Wilding has identified -- these are the tab 3 documents, JP12, JP13, which are clipboard documents, which means the text has been copied in some form. I am not going to ask you about those. I am going to ask you about some documents which were created on 26th June, which are JP1 to JP7. I say they are dated the 26th, what I should have said is that the computer clock shows 26th June. Can you say why there are copy documents in the memory of your computer dating from that time?

MS ROGERS: Were any of these documents live on the organiser when you provided it to the BBC?

MS ROGERS: Can I simply tell the Inquiry this: there has been a mistake in the fact that JP1 to JP6 had been printed off. There in fact are not six copies on the organiser memory. What has happened is that for some reason a document has been photocopied six times. So there should in fact be JP1 and JP7 only.

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much.

MS ROGERS: That is a mistake somewhere in our machinery, the photocopying. It is nothing to do with Mr Gilligan. There is a second set of memoranda which have been dragged from the memory which bear the computer date 30th June. Again, can you comment on those?

MS ROGERS: I should have identified them for your Lordship. They are in tab 6 of the file, they bear the numbers JP9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Did you show these versions which bear the computer date 30th June to anyone else?

MS ROGERS: There is a document, JP21, which is in tab 7 of your Lordship's file. That bears the computer date 1st July 2003. That document is identical to JP15. Can you explain why there is a file copy dated 1st July?

MS ROGERS: Did you know the copy was there?

MS ROGERS: Can we just identify for the record, we have been dealing with the memoranda all related to JP15, the first file. If we were to look at JP22, 27, 28 and 29, we see copies of the second Kelly file, the short Kelly file, bearing the dates 26th and 30th and 1st July. If there are any alterations in them, I am afraid they have escaped me. Again, can you explain why those exist in the memory of your organiser?

MS ROGERS: Finally, on these documents, we have JP8. It should be in tab 9 of the hard copy file for those who have it. We know, because Mr Wilding has confirmed, a file with a SYS marking is a clipboard file. We see there is some text placed on the clipboard by being cut. Can you say when that was placed on the clipboard?

MS ROGERS: Mr Gilligan, finally this: you were asked by the Inquiry to produce your organiser and agreed to do so. Professor Sammes and Mr Wilding have referred to source material. I wonder if you could say, briefly, what it is that you have on your organiser that led to confidential sources being discussed?

MS ROGERS: I have nothing more for you. Mr Dingemans or Lord Hutton might.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you.

MR DINGEMANS: Mr Gilligan, can I understand this: the gist of your evidence is this: that the reason for the two different memoranda is because one was produced as you were going through the quote agreement process; is that right?

MR DINGEMANS: And you say that the clock must have been between 16 and 40 hours out because it changed time in the middle of the meeting?

MR DINGEMANS: When you went through the process of agreeing the quotes with Dr Kelly, did you have your organiser with you?

MR DINGEMANS: If we look at JP11 and JP15, let us just take four paragraphs down on JP11, which comes to the top at JP15.

MR DINGEMANS: "The dossier was transformed in the week before it was published". We can start to see at the top of the top of JP15 "transformed week before".

MR DINGEMANS: So you did not cut and paste the quote "the dossier was transformed" and just paste it up the page?

MR DINGEMANS: These Sharp organisers, it is not that easy to type on them. It is not like a keyboard, is it?

MR DINGEMANS: It is not like a normal keyboard, it is a small keyboard?

MR DINGEMANS: And it is therefore more difficult to type?

MR DINGEMANS: Cutting and pasting is the logical way of moving text around, is it not?

MR DINGEMANS: Do you know why you did not cut and paste this first one?

MR DINGEMANS: The whole of the quote agreement process, the whole of the quote agreement process, did you have your personal organiser out for it?

MR DINGEMANS: And when you finished the quote agreement process, was there any other discussion between you and Dr Kelly?

MR DINGEMANS: Was that before or after the computer had been put away?

MR DINGEMANS: You see, on Day 3, 12th August 2003, this was before we had heard that the notes had been, as it were, changed and saved at the end of the meeting, you say this: "At the end of the meeting I agreed, as part of the quote agreement process, how I would describe him in any report that I did and offered him two alternatives..." And you then relay the two alternatives. So on Day 3 you are telling us that the quote agreement process, where you have your organiser out, included the description.

MR DINGEMANS: So in fact when you said on Day 3, and I will read exactly what you said: "At the end of the meeting I agreed, as part of the agreement process, how I would describe him in any report..." So that was just inaccurate, was it?

MR DINGEMANS: Because yesterday when you were giving evidence, this is Day 19, page 32, after being asked about this by Mr Sumption, how you have recorded him: "It is not recorded in your personal organiser note or in the note that you gave to Miranda Holt on 28th May that Dr Kelly had this very prominent role... "Answer: No, but I conveyed it orally to the editorial team... "Question: If you were making a note of the most important things that he had to say to you and he really had claimed to have been one of those in charge of the process, you would surely have recorded that, would you not?. "Answer: As I said in my first evidence, I certainly should have recorded that; and I had put my organiser away by then, in fact."

MR DINGEMANS: And this was therefore not part of the quote agreement process?

MR DINGEMANS: After the meeting with Dr Kelly, did you access your notes again to revise them again?

MR DINGEMANS: You did not revise those notes then?

MR DINGEMANS: An obvious explanation for the notes having different dates would be this, would it not, Mr Gilligan: it is a day out. Day one is what you note with Dr Kelly and day two is your revision when you are producing your handwritten note. Is that what happened?

MR DINGEMANS: I had asked you before when you gave evidence whether or not you used a pencil and notebook, because you have seen Dr Kelly's evidence in two passages where he referred to you using a pencil and notebook.

MR DINGEMANS: Dr Kelly was a scientist and we know he was interested in computers. I mean, he had seven or something, the police have told us, that were located at his property. If you had had a personal organiser, Sharp organiser, it is the sort of thing he is, as a scientist, interested in computers, likely to have recollected. Is that not right?

MR DINGEMANS: That is entirely right; and different people will recollect different things. But sometimes scientists are more likely to be more accurate about things like computers or Sharp organisers?

MR DINGEMANS: Dr Kelly, you say, was the person who mentioned Mr Campbell's name for the first time.

MR DINGEMANS: That must have come as a bolt out of the blue?

MR DINGEMANS: And yet on your first note you do not put it down.

MR DINGEMANS: When we look at your second note, it is hardly a long note, is it? It is "Campbell". How did you miss it?

MR DINGEMANS: It might have come in the quote agreement process?

MR DINGEMANS: Let me just take you to how you described the meeting once before, BBC/1/27. This is your Mail on Sunday article. I imagine this was accurate, was it not?

MR DINGEMANS: It is coming up.

MR DINGEMANS: If we scroll down you talk about him, in the fourth paragraph, despairing about Downing Street and the dossier. Then, just where the words "Andrew" appear on the left-hand: "'Nothing changed', he said. 'Until the week before, it was just like I told you. It was transformed the week before publication, to make it sexier.' "'The classic', he said, 'was the statement that WMD were ready for use in 45 minutes..." Then he talks about that: "I asked him how this transformation happened. The answer was a single word 'Campbell'."

MR DINGEMANS: It rather suggests from that that you were saying Campbell was mentioned in the first run-through.

MR DINGEMANS: Dr Kelly was clear that the words "Campbell" or the word "Campbell" as in Alastair Campbell had been mentioned at the meeting.

MR DINGEMANS: We have seen his evidence on that. But he has also been clear and consistent that it was you that had raised it. Does the fact that it is not in the first draft, where you are noting his answers but not your questions, suggest that it was you that raised the question of Mr Campbell?

MR DINGEMANS: Finally, a way of identifying as to timing what lag there really was on the personal organiser at the time, because once you have changed the batteries we now know the lag to be 1 hour 16 minutes but it could have been different, we have heard that from the experts, one way of chasing that down would be to look at the material you had already saved on your computer. Would you permit that to happen?

MR DINGEMANS: Protected, again, to ensure that other sources were not --

MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, those are my questions.

LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much. Mr Gilligan, your evidence is that the first mention of the name "Campbell" might have arisen when you are going through the interview at the end with Dr Kelly; is that right?

LORD HUTTON: Well, how could it have been mentioned towards the end? How would it have arisen?

LORD HUTTON: So, it was not just a matter of confirming quotes, you might have put some further questions to him about what he had earlier said?

LORD HUTTON: Yes.

LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Ms Rogers is there anything you wish to put? MS ROGERS: My Lord, no.

LORD HUTTON: Does that conclude the evidence? Ladies and gentlemen, I understand the suggestion has been made that to enable us to get through the timetable next week that we sit at 10.15 in the morning. I gather that whilst that may not be very convenient that there is no strong dissent. Am I correct in thinking that everyone is reasonably agreeable to that? Yes. Thank you very much. Then we will sit at 10.15 on Monday. There is another matter I would just like to mention which is this: I know that many of the members of the press have had to forego their summer holiday to report on this Inquiry and understand they wish to know if they can to make arrangements to have a holiday in October. I have been told that some of you ladies and gentlemen are concerned in case my report might be delivered in October when you are away on holiday. I shall of course try to deliver my report as quickly as I can, but there is no real prospect that it will be delivered in October and therefore holiday plans can safely be made for that month. I have stated that this afternoon simply to assist the members of the press. No inferences should be drawn from these remarks as to when I hope to deliver my report. I will probably make a further comment about this at the conclusion of the sittings.