· QC outlines Dyke battle plan · Hutton verdict 'wrong in law' · Spy chief revealed WMD doubt
Kamal Ahmed, political editor Sunday February 1, 2004 The Observer
The war between the BBC and the Government was re-ignited last night after a series of leaked documents revealed growing insistence within the corporation that there are fundamental flaws in Lord Hutton's report.
A confidential briefing document taking to task key findings by the Ulster judge reveals that executives throughout the BBC believe that the inquiry report was blatantly one-sided and took little account of the corporation's evidence.
As Tony Blair prepares to 'give some ground' on the issue of weapons of mass destruction at an appearance before a parliamentary committee of inquiry on Tuesday, the fresh evidence reveals that far from letting it drop, many senior executives want to continue the battle.
A second leaked document prepared by the BBC for Hutton also reveals crucial details of why executives stood by its controversial Today report, detailing a lunch between the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, and Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme.
In a witness statement prepared by Marsh and BBC legal representatives, it is claimed that Dearlove suggested that 'hard evidence of WMD in Iraq would never be found'.
Blair is likely to admit that although he believed the intelligence at the time, he agrees that there is a 'growing need' for 'an explanation' of why WMD have not been found.
The BBC briefing document once again backs large parts of the controversial reports by Andrew Gilligan, claiming that the Government 'sexed up' intelligence to make a stronger case for war against Saddam Hussein.
The report goes on to question Alastair Campbell's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. It says that his evidence on amendments to the September 2002 Iraq weapons dossier was 'inconsistent' with what he told the inquiry.
Friends of Campbell say the BBC should accept the Hutton findings and move on. 'He was cleared by the Intelligence and Security Committee, he was cleared by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and he was cleared by Hutton,' said one. 'What more do people want?'
The report, entitled Freedom of Speech and obtained by The Observer, says Hutton was 'wrong in law' and ignored key evidence critical of the Government.
It reveals that the carefully nuanced statements by Gavyn Davies, the BBC chairman, who resigned last week, and Greg Dyke, the director-general, only scratch the surface of simmering anger in the corporation.
Far from drawing a line under the controversy, as has been suggested by Richard Ryder, acting BBC chairman, the document is expected to form the spine of a trenchant defence of the corporation by Dyke, in the next week. Senior executives say they support the document which throws light on how the 'BBC really feels'.
Writing in today's Observer, Melvyn Bragg, one of Dyke's closest friends, who has been in constant contact with him over the past week, said that the 'rudderless governors' had panicked in accepting his resignation. Dyke has told friends he believes the BBC was 'stitched up' by Hutton and that its journalists were not given a fair hearing. The governors reacted like 'startled rabbits caught in the headlights'.
Bragg said: 'While the rest of the country was trying to weigh up the wholly unanticipated bombshell of the Hutton report, the rudderless BBC governors had panicked. They wanted to make an ill-judged sacrifice of the man by far the best able to get the BBC through its crisis.'
The report was drawn up on advice from Andrew Caldecott, the barrister hired by the BBC to present its case to the inquiry. It says Hutton's statement that 'accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others should not be made by the media' is 'wrong in law'.
'As a general and unqualified proposition, this extract is wrong as a matter of law,' the report says. 'That is not to say that the BBC defends those parts of its reports in which it inaccurately reported Dr Kelly.
'However insofar as Dr Kelly was accurately reported - which in large measure he was - the BBC was entitled to broadcast them whether or not the BBC had itself managed conclusively to verify what he had said.
'Andrew Gilligan did repeatedly make clear that his story was derived from what his source said. BBC coverage throughout carried balancing government denials.'
The submission will anger Downing Street, which has said it wants to draw a line under the issue. Much of the document raises issues the Government says have been dealt with by Hutton.
The document says 'the language of the [September 2002] dossier did go or may well have gone too far'. It also asks why Hutton 'excludes from his remit' whether the infamous '45-minutes claim' was referring to battlefield weapons or missiles.
'The BBC believes this issue is fundamental to any full examination of both Dr Kelly's concerns and the public interest issues,' it says.
Marsh is also said by friends to be angered by allegations that editorial control of the Today programme, where Gilligan first made the claims, was defective. Marsh was not called to give evidence to Hutton.
'How can he face criticism when he has not been able to put his case?' said one BBC executive.
Marsh, who is unlikely to resign after receiving supporting statements from his senior managers, did prepare a witness statement for the inquiry in case he was called. In it he details a rigorous system of control which Gilligan had to go through before his report was broadcast.
He has admitted that although Gilligan made an error in his first unscripted report on the Today programme, later reports, which went through the editorial process, were correct.