Hoon 'attended Kelly naming strategy meeting'

Geoff Hoon was present at a meeting where Britain's Ministry of Defence’s “naming strategy” over Dr David Kelly was discussed, his head of news said today.

The UK Defence Secretary claimed he was “not party to discussions” about the strategy, which lawyers have argued led to the public naming of Dr Kelly as the source for a report that the UK government “sexed up” its weapons dossier.

Mr Hoon said he “did not see” and “played no part” in the preparation of the MoD questions and answers that led journalists to identify Dr Kelly.

But the UK ministry’s head of news, Pam Teare, told the Hutton Inquiry he was at the meeting and might have had a copy of the briefing beforehand.

His special adviser, Richard Taylor, previously gave evidence that the naming strategy was discussed at a meeting in Mr Hoon’s office on July 9, the day Dr Kelly was named.

The evidence of the two key civil servants will leave Mr Hoon facing difficult questions when he returns to be cross-examined at Britain's Royal Courts of Justice on Monday.

Lord Hutton has made it clear he is deeply concerned about the way the MoD carried out its naming strategy, which lawyers have argued enabled journalists to guess Dr Kelly’s identity.

Mr Hoon was asked during his evidence-in-chief on August 27 about Dr Kelly’s name being confirmed by his press office and his special adviser Mr Taylor.

He told the inquiry he was “not specifically aware at the time“.

The inquiry has heard that a statement was released on July 8 announcing that an unnamed official from the MoD had admitted to contact with BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan.

A question and answer brief – Q&A – was drafted by Ms Teare and another press officer and approved by the ministry’s Permanent Undersecretary Sir Kevin Tebbit but was not used until July 9.

It approved the confirmation of Dr Kelly’s name by press officers if the correct name was given to them, and included key details about the weapons expert.

Ms Teare said she believed she discussed the Q&A with Mr Hoon and others at a regular morning briefing on July 9 – before Dr Kelly’s name had been published.

“It’s likely that I might have run through an outline of the Q&A material,” she said.

Jeremy Gompertz QC, for the Kelly family, asked if Mr Hoon saw the Q&A document at that meeting.

“I do not recall,” she said, adding: “I do not recall there being a long discussion about the Q&A.”

Ms Teare continued: “I cannot recall the detail, although it is likely that I would have given a brief outline to the secretary of state.”

Mr Gompertz asked if she had shown the document to Mr Hoon.

She replied: “He may have had it already, I do not know.”