Mr George Galloway

30 November 2006

Ms Alda Barry, the Registrar of Members Interests, and Mr Ron McKay, accompanying Mr Galloway were also present.

Q395  Sir Philip Mawer: *** The second thing is briefly to say something about Mr McKay's role. My understanding is you have brought him here as an adviser to you in that capacity or a friend, is that correct?

Mr Galloway: A friend was the word you used in the letter.

Q396  Sir Philip Mawer: I just need to say a word to Mr McKay to define the role of a friend as I understand it in this context. It could be said in some senses that you are an interested party in this affair in that you have been named in at least one of the reports published in the States, as I remember, as being an alleged recipient of some money derived from the Oil-for-Food Programme, but you are not here in that context, you are here today to assist Mr Galloway. However, of course, I want to hear Mr Galloway's answers to the questions. If at any point you want to say anything to Mr Galloway do feel free to indicate that and speak to him. If there are points which you think are important to be drawn out then please feel able to make them. I have said this so we can be clear about why you are here today and in what capacity you are here. I want you to feel able in that capacity to fully participate in the proceedings. You will understand that what I am really interested in today are Mr Galloway's answers to the questions I am going to put to him. I sent you a letter[28] in which I set out the issues that I thought would be helpful for us to touch on today. You replied[29] to me on 1 November giving an initial reaction to the documentation which I sent to you and, no doubt we will get into the substance of your reaction as we go along. What I propose to do is go through the issues in the order in which I set them out in the letter that I sent to you. First of all, touching on the adjournment debate[30] which really is important in terms of your understanding of the origin or derivation of the documents[31] which were published by The Daily Telegraph and, of course, were the genesis of the complaints that I received and the inquiry that I have had to conduct. I would like then to talk a bit about the Mariam Appeal. Then I would like to go into matters relating to Baghdad and in that context talk a little bit further about Boxing Day 1999 and what did or did not happen on it. I will also touch on evidence relating to that which I have received from Mr Tony Zureikat about which I know from your letter you have serious reservations. I will then also touch on related matters which come out of that. That is the order in which I am proposing to take things.

Mr Galloway: That is fine.

Q397  Sir Philip Mawer: Can we start with the adjournment debate. As far as I am concerned, the position on that is I have read your contribution in the adjournment debate on 8 May this year carefully. Essentially, I understand you to say in the course of it that you had received information from a senior UK journalist to the effect that some of the documents which were published by The Daily Telegraph—I think you referred to the second set of documents—were not found in the circumstances in which they were alleged to have been found by Mr David Blair of The Telegraph but were received by him separately. First of all, I wonder if you can confirm for me what you meant by "the second set of documents"? I believe you intended to mean—and I have put this to you in a letter—the documents that were published on the second day, 23 April 2003, by The Telegraph, but I wonder if you can confirm that so I can be absolutely clear on the point?

Mr Galloway: The foreign correspondent concerned is a household name. He is a very senior correspondent with no relationship to me, with no reason to lie and who volunteered, indeed tried hard, to set up an appointment with me in order to impart the information that I spoke about in the House on the date that you mentioned, I think 8 May. What he said to me is as I have described it to the House and was described in an email from me to my lawyer, Kevin Bays, immediately after the meeting. Mr McKay was there and was a witness to what was said at the meeting. However, as has been the subject of slightly vexed correspondence between you and I, I gave my word to the person that without their permission I would not reveal their identity. For reasons which I have explained to you I have to hold to that. The "second set of documents" to which I refer are the documents that were published on the second day. I do not remember the dates but you have got them there.

Q398  Ms Barry: The second and third day.

Q399  Sir Philip Mawer: The documents were published on the second day. Let us go through them in order. As I recall it, there were four key documents, you might say. One was a memorandum by Tariq Aziz which was published on the first day. This is the one that referred to the programme of work about which we had a conversation when we last met. Also published on that first day was the memorandum which is alleged to have been from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, to which was attached the alleged record of a meeting at which you and Mr Zureikat were said to have been present and during which you were said to have made a bid for further resources from the Iraqi regime. Those were published on the first day. The second set of documents, by your definition, published on the second day, were what I have shorthanded as the presidential response, that is it was a memorandum from the secretary of the then President Saddam Hussein's secretariat, the head of that secretariat, giving an initial response from Saddam Hussein, it is said, and instructing a group of ministers to meet to consider the requests that had been made. On the 24^th there was a further document published which was the alleged response of the ministerial group. That was signed by Izzat Ibrahim.

Mr Galloway: There were three stories, as it were?

29   Volume II, WE 87. Back

30   HC Deb, 8 May 2006, cols 143-146. Back

31   Volume II, WE 1 and 4-8. Back