TODAY PROGRAMME

Fridav 182° Juiv 2003

John Humpfiry's interview with Mark Damazer, Deoutv Director BBC News
Time: 07 :09

JH Andrew Cnllrgan is back m the news a.-am, true he's hardly beer out of it
since lie was attacked by Dovnmg Street for his story about the way one
of the dossiers-on Iraq had been hand'-,d. For awhile he becane the
story. Opposition MPs said he was being used to distract attention from
the real story which is why we went to war on Iraq in the firs: place.
Well now he's been accused by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of
being an unsatisfactory witness because they called him before them
again yesterday and he refused to tell them the name of the source for h;s
- story and he made other allegations as well. Well the iieanng was lseld
i in prnvate but Mark Da.-nazer, the deputy director of BBC News, was with
Andrew. I icnov,, only in an observer position Mark Damazer but was
there anyjusttficatton for their claim subsequently that Andrew had
effectivelv changed his story. Had backed away f:om it
1l:D I didn't think so . I thought the evidence that Andrew Gtlligan gave
yesterday is consistent wtth what he said on this programme on May 29"'
and thereafter . And it's consistent wah the evidence he gave to the
committce when he was there for two hours or so on Jane 19"' And just
a brief reminder what Andrew Gzihgan's j ournalhsn: had sad and what
~ he'd said in that evidence was that the Septernber dossier on Iraq had
i been transformed. The key transformation was around the 45' claim
i about weapons of mass destruction and how quickly they could be used
~ and that that 45'claim was included in the dossier against our wishes and
~ that is a quote from the source because that 45' claim wasn't reliable and
~ I saw nothuig yesterday that took _'ridrew Gilligan away from those
claims made by his source and put into the public domain in the first
instance by this protrranlme
i JH But didn't iz ,go further than that. Didn't he say that Alastair Car7pbeil or
didn't he say Ins source had said that Alastair Campell had been
responsible for inserting that claim about 45'and hasn't everybody
including Mr Scarlet, chairman, ofthe joint intelligent committee, said
I that that was not the case
MD I Well what Andrew actually said, and allow me briefly to read from the
1 transcript of May 29"' about which there's been so much subsequent
controversy . Andrew sad "now this official (and he's quoting his
source) told us the transformation of the dossier took place at the bznest
of Downing Street" and he added (IH : not Mr Campbell) . Mr Campbell
~ wasn't menttoned at that stage but rt is unquestionably true +1z at Mr
Car.ipbell was mentioned later in Andrew Gilligan's journalism and we
are in no way flinching or backing- away from `hat either
. But in that
report on May 29°' Andrew Gi11_gan went on to say, again quoting the
source, "most people in intelligence weren't happy with the dossier
because it didn't :-erlect the considered view they wers puting forward.
It was included in the dossier against our wishes because it wasn't -

8 R- I `-'I 2- ~ O Kc~
 reliable". And what seems to -in, to have happened yesterday in the
Committee hearn:gs was a large and rather, if I may say so, aggressive
passage took place m which t^_e comrnittee was suggesting that there was
a huge material difference between what Andrew said then - it was
included m the dossier against our wishes - and having aseady said that
that trans :ormaton of `he dossier took place at the beh°st of Downing
Street There's a big difference, The committee seemed to arg'.te between
that and the notion of insertion and on that semantic difference they've
constructed a verdict on _Asndrew Gtllrgan saying that he is not a
satisfactory witness and i thought that verdict was absolutely unfair
JH But then you're his boss . You're responsible for what he does. You
' would say that wouldn't you and isn't it the case that certain implications, ;
certain inferences, have been drawn from his reportir.g wluch are now or ;
which now seem to be bemg denied . This is the all egatton that's being
made
MD Well Andrew Gtlhgan reports in the way that he does with the words of
his choosing, publislied by this prom-amme after a normal editonal -
~, process has been gone through and he standsby that
JH ', Do we- does the BBC? I
MI? { :'he BBC absolutely stands by that
JH i NVithout any reservations

MD With no reservations . He then goes to the select conn-mttee before the

.r
publication of the select committe.,o~ s report on June 19 . He's asked a
lot of tough questions m my view perfectly appropriately and fairly by
the committee for round about two hours. He explains the nature of the
story. How it came about. He of course doesn't explain who the source
is . But he goes into considerable detail about fie compilation of the story
and the back--round to it and the justification for p ublication
I JFP ~ Why couldn't he have given thern the source yesterday, given that this
I meeting w as being held, this hearing was being held in private Given
that the name of Dr Kelly is m the frame, why couldn't he have said, in
pnvate, this was the source?
MD I know the eotruntttee feels extremely strongly about it or at least those
~ members of the committee who were there yesterday . I should put in at i
~ this point that clearly one or two key members of the committee were ;
absent (JH : we're going to come to that m a moment) but be that as it
may the Cornxmttee obviously feels strongly about it and I can appreciate
, their point of view but I think that not only BBC journalism but
I journalism across the land would suffer a pretty fatal blow if sources were
given up to Parliament on the basis faat there was some higher duty that
Parliament had to preserve, rather than the interests of a :Et-.-_ flow~ of '
information in a pluralist democracy and although I p° :fectly understand
that 'this is going to be seen as rnessy by some, the fact is that democracy
isn't always neat . Parliament has a job to do and we have to understand
and respect it but by the same token if journalists are not a!lowed to
protect their sources it will mean that mfonr,ation that is needed to expose I
all kinds of issues, not merely political issues, but all kinds of other issues
will cease to flow and in zhat way democracy will be poorly served and m I~
I my view Parliarient as well
JH ~ Mark Dam zzet, many thznks

OCAN
~ gC ( ~I2t`~ a9V