THE TREASURY SOLICITOR
Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SWl H 9JS
CX 123242 St James's Park Switchboard 020 7210 3000 (GTN 210)
Direct Line: 020 7210 3090 Direct Fax: 020 7210 3066 E-mail : [Link] .uk
David Pearson - Head of Litigation
Please quote
Martin Smith
The Hutton Inquiry Yoir reterence
2nd Floor
81 Chancery Lane Date Z2
" nd October 2OOJ
LONDON
WC2A 1DD
Dear Mr Smith
RE: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT
I was just about to send you a letter enclosing a supplementary note following the
evidence of Sir Kevin Tebbttt in Phase II when I received your letter of today's date
enclosing the supplemental submissions on behalf of the Family. In that, you said that
the only submrssions the Inquiry had received were those of the Kelly Family
There have been two communications to you relating to Sir Kevin's evidence of
which I am aware. First, there was a letter from Robert Artken to you of the 20`h of
October (sent by e-mail on the 20'h of October at 16:12) regarding Sir Kevin's
amendments and corrections to the evidence submitted to the Inquiry on the 13`h of
October . Second, Robert Attken sent an e-mail on the 215` of October at 16 :04
attaching an annex to the Government's submissions in relation to Kevin Tebbrtt .
The document which I was going to send (and which is attached) is a supplementary
note following the evidence of Sir Kevin Tebbttt in Phase 11 which is intended to
assist the Inquiry with references to Sir Kevin's evidence .
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt.
DAVID PEARSON
~-Sg ~ it~ o W I r
a
°w°°`E
~,/SFBIE _
tT4T$TaR R PIY7P7 T
HUTTON INQUIRY
THE GOVERNMENT'S CLOSING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE OF SIR KEVIN
TEBBIT IN PHASE II
The Government's closing written submissions were filed with the Inquiry before the
evidence given by Sir Kevin Tebbit in Phase II . This Supplementary Note is intended to
assist the Inquiry with references to Sir Kevin's evidence m Phase II on Day 25 which
support the Government's closing written submissions All references below to paragraph
numbers are to the numbered paragraphs in the Government's closing written
submissions . All references below to page numbers are to the transcript of Sir Kevin's
evidence on Day 25.
Parawaph 88
Sir Kevin asked -Mr Hatfield to conduct the interview with Dr Kelly on 4 July because
Mr Hatfield (i) was the Personnel Director ; (it) had had nothing to do with the dispute
between the Government and the BBC and was m a position to take a dispassionate vtew :
and (m) had previously been a member of the JIC for 5 years (p. 1).
Paragraph 99
On 4 July, Sir Kevin judged it necessary to inform the Cabinet Office and No 10. through
Sir David Omand, that Dr Kelly had come forward This was a hugely important issue
bearing on the credibility of the Government and its mtelhgence institutions, it could not
simply be regarded as an MoD matter (pp. 3 - 4).
Paragraph 114
Sir Kevin's minute (MOD/1,144) recorded that one of the key issues would be Dr Kelly's
readiness to be associated with a public statement that named him and carried a clear and
~s t ~ ~ 2 1 Q002
sustainable refutation of the core allegation on the 45 minute intelligence . Sir Kevin did
not intend his minute to be a direct instruction to Mr Hatfield to raise this. He intended it
as a general guideline (pp. 9 - 10, 110) .
Paragraph 117
Following the interview on 7 July, Sir Kevin personally thought it very likely that Dr
Kelly was Mr Grlligan's claimed single source (p. 11)
Paraeraph 121
Footnote 5: add. Tebbit . Day 25, pp . 18 - 20.
Para~raph 123
CAB/1/70-71 is the draft statement which Sir Kevin took back to the MoD from No 10
(p~ 20)
Footnote 1 add, Tebbit, Day 25 p. 22.
Paragraph 142(2)
The ISC was due to start taking evidence from officials, beginning with Mr Scarlett. on
Wednesday, 9 July (pp. 14, 111) .
Paranraph 142(3
Any press statement issued needed to contain a certain amount of information about Dr
Kelly (p . 13)
Para"h 142(4)
An allegation based on a single anonymous source is best corrected for the public record
by the original source personally clarifying the issue (p 7)_
Para _ aph 142(9)
Sir Kevin believed that Dr Kelly had come forward recognising that he had contributed to
a problem and was ready and willing to try to put it right (p. 46) . In his view . Dr Kelly
also had a personal interest in correcting the public record and thereby removing the
implicit slurs against his conduct contained m Mr Gilhgan's broadcasts (p . 8).
Parauaph 143(2)
The ISC was due to start taking evidence from officials . beginning with Mr Scarlett, on
Wednesday, 9 July (pp. 14, 111) .
The Government expected the issue to break in the press at any moment (pp . 4 - 5).
Paragsaph 144(2)
Nothing could m practice be done to prevent Dr Kelly's name from coming into the
public domain But steps could be taken to prevent other officials (including one whose
life had been threatened) from wrongly being named or being subject to media intrusion
(pp. 26 - 28).
Dr Kelly cannot reasonably have supposed that the MoD press office would not confirm
his name m response to a direct question from a journalist (p . 108) .
The purpose of the Q&A used by the MoD's press office was to provide journalists with
information that gave credibility to the press statement (p. 96).
Parauanh 153(1)
The MoD treated Dr Kelly with respect and consideration and accepted his account as
truthful (pp . 51 - 52).
Parauranh 153(4)
Dr Kelly could not have returned to Iraq if his security clearance had been under threat.
There was, so far as the MoD was concerned, no risk to his security clearance or his
~ GOG
pension. On 17 July, Sir Kevin confirmed that Dr Kelly should be deployed to Iraq (Day
25 pp . 37 - 38)
