LONDON, 18 October 2003 — A few days after David Kelly’s suicide, Prime Minister Tony Blair was confronted by journalists on his aircraft as it prepared to land in Hong Kong. “Why did you authorize the naming of David Kelly?” he was asked. “That is completely untrue,” replied Blair. “Did you authorize anyone in Downing Street or in the Ministry of Defense to release David Kelly’s name?” he was asked. “Emphatically not,” responded Blair. “I did not authorize the leaking of the name of David Kelly”. The prime minister added: “Nobody was authorized to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout.”
This week, the Hutton inquiry heard the clearest unequivocal evidence that Blair was personally involved in the decisions which led to the public naming of the government’s chief adviser on Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons program. Sir Kevin Tebbit, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defense, told the inquiry that the key meeting from which everything else flowed was chaired by the prime minister on July 8.
“A policy decision on the handling of this matter had not being taken until the prime minister’s meeting. It was only after that that any of the press people had an authoritative basis on which to proceed,” said Sir Kevin. He agreed with Jeremy Gompertz, the Kelly family’s counsel, that the decision which led to the naming of Kelly was therefore taken at Downing Street and not the MoD, though he said his department “concurred” with it.
The July 8 meeting was “decisive”, insisted Sir Kevin. Government witnesses to the Hutton inquiry, including Sir Kevin, argued it was inevitable Kelly would be ousted, it was simply a matter of time. They avoided the fact that journalists were helpfully being steered in Kelly’s direction by the government’s own officials.
The evidence is quite clear. Downing Street and the MoD wanted to out Kelly. They both contributed to his ousting. The strategy was decided by Downing Street, specifically at a meeting chaired by the prime minister on July 8 when no minutes were taken. Unfortunately — for himself and the government — Kelly did not play ball. Understandably, perhaps, he did not tell his MoD bosses the full truth about what he told Gilligan or other journalists. But whatever the government’s motives — including buck-passing — Sir Kevin’s evidence and the prime minister’s assertions cannot both be right. There is a lingering smell of cowardice over Whitehall’s treatment of Kelly. That, or other failings, were reflected at the Labour Party conference which bottled out of the issue.
There is surely something unhealthy about a body politic with a huge parliamentary majority and self-destructing opposition which cannot focus on such an important issue as the honesty of a prime minister. James Dingemans, Lord Hutton’s counsel, ended by saying that the inquiry had thrown up questions which should be investigated by “other institutions”.
Will MPs be brave enough to rise to his challenge?
