Geoff Hoon, the British Defence Secretary, this week appeared to undermine Downing Street’s carefully crafted defence for the Hutton inquiry when he insisted that key officials in No 10 were intimately involved in the ”naming strategy” that led to the unmasking of Dr David Kelly.
His shifting of the blame to No 10 came on the eve of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s appearance before the Hutton inquiry into Kelly’s death by suicide — only the second time a prime minister will have appeared in public before a judicial inquiry.
Hoon gave a point-by-point account of how Downing Street took a deep interest in outing Kelly as the source of leaked Ministry of Defence intelligence reports on Iraq. The defence secretary revealed that:
Hoon had lengthy discussions with Campbell over the weekend of July 6 and 7 — just after Kelly had confirmed that he had met Andrew Gilligan — about whether it would be right to confirm publicly details about the scientist.
Hoon’s case raises questions about Downing Street’s claim that it merely rubber-stamped the Ministry of Defence’s strategy. Campbell has portrayed Downing Street’s role as peripheral.
Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, immediately seized on Hoon’s evidence to claim that the government was divided.
”Geoff Hoon has pointed the finger of blame at Mr Blair’s two most senior officials, Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell,” he said.
He called on Blair to clear up the confusion. ”The country demands that the prime minister explain who authorised the release of Kelly’s name and why they did so,” he said.
Hoon’s defensive performance in front of Hutton, during two and a half hours of evidence, has left him vulnerable after he appeared to contradict himself.
While denying his own involvement on several important points, he named 10 senior officials, including the most senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, Sir Kevin Tebbit.
Political opponents claimed that Hoon had lost control of his department. Menzies Campbell, the opposition Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader, said: ”Mr Hoon’s evidence leaves one wondering who was running the Ministry of Defence. Will no one take responsibility for the outing of Dr Kelly?”
His remarks came after Hoon gave a confusing account of his own role in the key element of the ”naming strategy” — a series of questions and answers drawn up by his press office that provided clues to journalists hunting Kelly’s identity.
Hoon initially distanced himself completely from the document. ”I did not see this Q&A and played no part in its preparation,” he said.
But towards the end of his evidence, James Dingemans, QC, the inquiry’s counsel, challenged him on his answer, forcing him to backtrack.
”I did not see the Q&A, but I was obviously aware of the advice that I had received that if the right name was given to a Ministry of Defence press officer, they should confirm it. I am not suggesting for a moment that I was not aware of that.”
Hoon drew laughter when he disputed that the Q&A process would inevitably lead to the identification of Kelly, even though it did.
”What I am resisting, certainly as far as I am concerned, is any suggestion that there was some sort of conspiracy, some sort of strategy, some sort of plan covertly to make his name known. That was not the case,” he said.
Hoon, at times, gave the impression of being a marginal player in government. He admitted that he had seen a draft of the controversial government dossier on Iraq only a week before its publication on September 24 last year and had made no comment on it.
However, Hoon repeatedly defended the government’s decision to unmask Kelly on the grounds that it was important to ”correct the public record” against the BBC report that Downing Street had ”sexed up” last year’s Iraqi arms dossier.
The prime minister is likely to be asked about the questions and answers today because Hutton has repeatedly asked witnesses whether it was right to unmask Kelly.
Downing Street has been directly implicated in the first stage of the naming strategy — the announcement that ”an individual” had come forward. But Hoon stopped short of directly linking No 10 to the final stage, the questions and answers.
The prime minister is likely to face the most important grilling of his life when he follows in the footsteps of John Major, who became the first prime minister to appear in public before a judicial inquiry when he gave evidence to the Scott arms-to-Iraq inquiry. Blair, who said he was prepared to take responsibility for the actions of his government, is said to be confident that Hutton will show that he did nothing wrong.
This view was underlined this week by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary (interior minister), who said the government would be vindicated. In the first ministerial comment outside the inquiry since it opened, he said: ”It was the prime minister who set up the inquiry and he did so precisely to get to the truth.”
Blunkett added: ”I think the Hutton inquiry will have a beneficial effect because I think it will clear the air. Although people are sick and tired of day-to-day, wall-to-wall coverage, I think Lord Hutton will find in a way that people can have confidence again in the institutions of this country.” — Â