WEDNESDAY 16" JULY llam

IRAQ/BBC
Asked if Downing Street now accepted that Dr David Kelly was not Andrew
Gilligan's source, the PMOS said that our position on this issue had not
changed . Dr Kelly had come forward because he had been disturbed by the
coincidence between his experience, Mr Gilligan's report and the evidence Mr
Gilligan had given to the FAC. Of particular concern was the mention of the
30% figure, the discussion of the September dossier, the mention of Alastair
Campbell, the comment about the 45-minute claim and the fact that the meeting
between him and Mr Gilligan had taken place on 22 May at a central London
hotel. All these issues had raised in his mind the possibility that he might be
considered to be the source . We still did not yet know whether he was or not,
but it would be a very simple thing to resolve this matter. All the BBC had to
do was confirm whether Dr Kelly was the source or not. We were not asking
them to say who it was if it wasn't him - although if it wasn't, there were
clearly questions relating to Mr Gilligan's evidence to the FAC . Either way, it
would be troubling if they continued to refuse to answer our question . Put to
him that the BBC did not want their source to be identified through a process of
elimination, the PMOS said that we had never suggested that anyone else might
be the source. Dr Kelly had come forward voluntarily . He had been
completely open about what he had done . All we were asking the BBC to do
was tell us we were wrong. Usually the BBC was not shy to do so. There was
a logical disconnect between the defence that they were protecting their source
and the fact that the person concerned had come forward voluntarily to identify
himself. Responding to the suggestion put forward by the Chairman of the
Lobby that he appeared to be the only person in the room who thought there
was any possibility that Dr Kelly was the source, and subsequent interventions
by the Guardian and Sky correspondents who maintained that the Lobby
Chairman was wrong, the PMOS repeated that there was a logical disconnect
between the BBC's determination to protect the identity of a source and the fact
that someone who could be the source had come forward and identified himself
voluntarily . He apologised for hammering the point home and acknowledged
that everyone was bored with this story and wanted to move on - nobody more
than us. However, there was a troubling question which would not go away
until the BBC answered it.

Asked how much time had lapsed between the letter which Dr Kelly had
written to his line manager and the MoD's statement, the PMOS said that it was
five days . As we had explained at the time, the MoD had wanted to speak to
Dr Kelly and make sure that he was confident in his own recollection of events.
The Department also wanted to make sure that things were done properly in
accordance with its personnel procedures. We couldn't be criticised on the one
hand for being careful and taking time over this matter and on the other for
putting Dr Kelly forward to the FAC. We had handled the matter properly in
accordance with MoD procedures by notifying the FAC about a matter which
we believed was relevant to their inquiry . Asked if Dr Kelly had been aware of
the possibility that he could face disciplinary action at the time of his hearing
and whether that would have affected the evidence he had given, the PMOS
said that internal procedures at the MoD were a matter for the MoD. It would
be wrong for him to comment on personnel issues .