Spotlight returns on Gilligan

Beleaguered BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan was returning to the Hutton Inquiry today knowing he is already at the centre of an investigation by his bosses.

He was ordered to submit another witness statement to the inquiry after it emerged he revealed to a member of Britain's Foreign Affairs Committee that Dr David Kelly was the source for a Newsnight report by Susan Watts.

The Radio 4 Today programme defence correspondent refused to reveal his own source but did suggest a list of questions which could be put to the weapons expert – questions which might have backed up his own report.

His broadcast on May 29 began the row between the BBC and the UK government when he quoted an anonymous source as saying that the claim that Saddam Hussein could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was inserted into the September dossier late at the request of the UK government.

The claim that the dossier was “sexed up” against the wishes of the intelligence community eventually led to Dr Kelly being publicly named as the source and being brought before FAC.

Colleagues said the weapons expert was thrown by questions about his contact with Ms Watts – information which could have come from Gilligan’s e-mail.

BBC director general Greg Dyke told the Hutton Inquiry earlier this week that the e-mail to FAC member David Chidgey was “not acceptable”.

And he said he had asked the BBC’s general council to look at some of the lessons that might be learned from the row, including the issue of anonymous sources and live “two-ways” between reporters and presenters.

Gilligan – who will be examined today by his own counsel and lawyers acting for the Kelly family, the UK government and for the inquiry – is likely to be questioned on those issues.

And James Dingemans QC, for the inquiry, said the reporter’s evidence was vital in answering three of the key questions that Lord Hutton must consider:

:: What was said by Dr Kelly to Gilligan when the pair met at a London hotel on May 22?

:: Did Gilligan accurately report what was said by Dr Kelly in his broadcast on May 29 and in his Mail on Sunday article on June 1?

:: Were the matters reported by Gilligan during his radio broadcast and in his Mail on Sunday article true?

Gilligan named Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell as the force behind the order for the dossier to be “sexed up” in an article he wrote for The Mail on Sunday.

In his earlier evidence to the inquiry, Gilligan admitted that he was the first to use the “sexed up” phrase during his meeting with Dr Kelly, but insisted that Dr Kelly was the first to suggest the name of Mr Campbell in relation to the insertion of the 45-minute claim.

He said he had taken notes of the conversation on a personal organiser. The inquiry will today hear from two forensic computer experts who examined the electronic organiser.

The inquiry has since heard from Olivia Bosch, a former Unscom weapons inspector, that Dr Kelly was taken aback by Gilligan’s use of a “name game”, in which the reporter had put Mr Campbell’s name forward.

Her evidence was a direct contradiction of Gilligan’s version of events.

The inquiry will also consider Gilligan’s admission during his earlier evidence that his use of language in the first report on the Today programme at 6.07am on May 29 was “not perfect“.

In that live interview with the presenter John Humphrys, Gilligan said the UK government probably knew the 45-minute claim was wrong when it was included in the dossier.

At the inquiry the reporter admitted that he had “quite unwittingly and unintentionally” given that impression about the intelligence, and had never meant to suggest that the government had lied.

Lord Hutton has seen an e-mail from Today programme editor Kevin Marsh, in which he said the report was “a good piece of investigative journalism, marred by flawed reporting”.

He described the reporter’s “loose” use of language as “our biggest millstone” and suggested that future Gilligan stories should be discussed with him in person, with “an explicit credibility test” for anonymous sources.